ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CABINET OFFICE

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked-

Music Licensing Levies

John Howell: What representations the Office of the Third Sector has received on the effects on charities and the voluntary sector of new music licensing levies.

Angela Smith: I have had a number of meetings with third sector representatives to hear their concerns. I have also met representatives from Phonographic Performance Ltd and the Performing Rights Society for Music. These meetings are helping to facilitate negotiations, and subsequent agreement between the two sides, about detailed arrangements for music licensing, prior to implementation.

John Howell: I thank the Minister for her response but, on the basis of her own figures, the changes to the exemption in music licences for charities and voluntary groups will cost them £20 million a year. Does she not think it hypocritical that Ministers can write in letters to my constituents that they have developed an environment that encourages charities to thrive when they are saddling them with a cost of £20 million a year?

Angela Smith: No, I do not. The hon. Gentleman has to understand that removing the exemption was not a whim of Government but a legal imperative. I think that we are the last country in Europe to remove it, but the important thing is that we proceed with agreement. Clearly, the Government do not want to put any additional burdens, including costs, on charities. It is very important that charities and the organisations that could be affected discuss the matter, and that is why I am very pleased to be able to facilitate those discussions between the two sides.

Tom Levitt: Everyone recognises the right of PPL to get the income from its work that the courts say it deserves, but I am sure that it would not wish to be seen to be imposing in any way an undue weight of levy, on the smallest charities in particular. Will the Minister try to make sure that there is a measured response to the outcome of the negotiations, and in particular that the amount of bureaucracy that charities will have to face as a result of this change is kept to an absolute minimum?

Angela Smith: Yes, of course. In fact, I met PPL and PRS this week after a meeting that I had the previous week with the Association of Charities Shops and the charities concerned, including the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and umbrella groups. We are very clear that we cannot have a system that imposes unreasonable burdens on charities, including administrative burdens. I pressed a joint system on PPL and PRS, and they are looking at it and are keen to facilitate it. Under that system, charities would get demands or letters only from those organisations, and not from others. The aim is to keep costs to a minimum, given the effect that the change could have on charities.

Francis Maude: Does not the small print of the Government's impact assessment show that no fewer than 250,000 voluntary organisations would suffer from this new music tax? The consultation stated:
	"There will be social costs for users who cease playing music because they cannot afford a PPL licence."
	We know that Lord Mandelson is all powerful and sweeps all before him, but could not Cabinet Office Ministers have shown a little backbone in resisting this new music tax?

Angela Smith: That question illustrates the right hon. Gentleman's fundamental misunderstanding. First, the levy is not a tax in any way, because no money at all accrues to the Government, whereas tax is money that goes to the Government. I therefore suggest that he gets his facts clear, as that might help him to understand the issues. Secondly, the Government have to make this change, as it is a legal imperative. We are working with all the organisations and charities involved and are having discussions in an attempt to reach agreement before any decision is taken forward.

Francis Maude: Does the Minister accept that it is by no means agreed universally that there is a legal obligation to make this change? We know that it will cost £20 million overall to the sector, and it will also impact on church halls, which are already suffering under the red tape imposed by the Licensing Act 2003. Among all his many other grand appointments, Lord Mandelson is now a Church Commissioner. Does she not find it curious that the person who is meant to be the Minister defending the Church of England is, at the same time, giving it a kick in the collection tins?

Angela Smith: Witty but inaccurate. The right hon. Gentleman has to understand that the Government are seeking to minimise costs for all organisations, and that is why we are facilitating meetings leading to agreement. We intend to proceed with agreement between the charities and voluntary organisations and PPL. He suggested that the costs would be around £20 million, but I think that that is an overstatement. The organisations concerned- [ Interruption. ] That number was contained in the original consultation, but I think that we have moved on significantly from then, as a result of the negotiations. I shall keep him up to date, as he seems to sadly out of date at present.

Michael Connarty: My hon. Friend will be aware that many hon. Members across all the Benches have campaigned for many years to ensure that the people who produce the music-the musicians-have the right to be rewarded for their efforts. That is what this is about. This is not a tax, but people deserve to get rewarded for the music that they record. The money happens to come through the PPL, but it is the artist who receives it. Does she agree that it is a matter of balance? It must be possible for the Government to work this out with the charities and the musicians: the charities must not be affected, but the people who make the music in the first place should not be robbed.

Angela Smith: My hon. Friend makes a valid point about balance. We should have a balance and an agreement between the two sides that are affected.

Cabinet Meeting (Durham)

Andrew Robathan: What the cost was of holding the Cabinet meeting in Durham on 18 February 2010.

Tessa Jowell: The cost of the Cabinet meeting and the public engagement event was £67,473, excluding VAT. The Cabinet's visit to Durham on 18 February created an opportunity for a whole range of ministerial visits right across the region.

Andrew Robathan: There is a suspicion abroad that the whole range of ministerial visits may have had more to do with electioneering for the coming general election, having used public money to get up there. Will the Minister please tell the House-if she cannot do so now, will she put a full list in the public domain-what party political engagements each Cabinet Minister had when he or she went to Durham?

Tessa Jowell: It is absolutely reprehensible to undertake uninformed smear. The Cabinet's visit to Durham and the visits that the Cabinet has undertaken to other cities in England and Wales reflect the Government's determination to get out and about, not to be wholly based in London, and I want to make it absolutely clear that the conduct of the Cabinet visits and the ministerial meetings are fully subject to the ministerial code. If any party political campaigning is undertaken, the costs are met by the Labour party, which would be responsible. There is complete transparency, and the hon. Gentleman should not make such claims.

Voting Age

Tom Clarke: What recent representations the Minister for young citizens and youth engagement has received on the merits of lowering the voting age to 16 years.

Dawn Butler: Representations have been made by various groups, including the British Youth Council and the UK Youth Parliament. The Government are absolutely determined to increase the engagement of young people in politics and will continue to review how best that is done, and that will include consideration of lowering the voting age to 16. We are also very innovative: today, we have the march on Government, and I will be on Habbo, where we have already had 40,000 visits and almost 1,000 members, to engage with young people.

Tom Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for an extremely comprehensive reply. In view of the fact that the debate on voting at 16 is clearly ongoing, will she inform me and, of course, the House about what action the Government are taking to ensure that citizenship education is consistent with our objectives of improving the democratic system?

Dawn Butler: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point about citizenship education. The Government believe that it is crucial to provide the best citizenship education for young people. The Department for Children, Schools and Families is funding 11 higher education institutions to provide free continuing professional development courses for teachers, and certificates and masters-level credits will be awarded when they are completed. On 18 March, we will have a debate right here in the House in Committee Room 14 to discuss citizenship education.

Gregory Campbell: Would it not be more appropriate to try to ensure an increase in the participation of the 18-to-25 age group, before considering lowering the voting age to 16?

Dawn Butler: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but one age group should not be considered to the exclusion of any other. In fact, it is habit forming when people, especially young people, get involved and engage in politics; they are then more likely to carry that through later on in their lives.

Brian H Donohoe: Surely, in my constituency, as in others, the voting record of those between the ages of 18 and 25 is so low that something desperate needs to be done, does it not?

Dawn Butler: I agree with hon. Friend that something desperate needs to be done. Surely, as part of that, hon. Members should make a cohesive effort to go out and engage with young people in all constituencies.

List of Ministerial Responsibilities

Peter Bone: What the cost was of producing the list of ministerial responsibilities published by her Department in October 2009; and if she will make a statement.

Tessa Jowell: The list of ministerial responsibilities is produced in-house by the Cabinet Office. Costs are met from within existing Cabinet Office budgets and are not separately identifiable.

Peter Bone: This document is terrific value for money. On page 2, it ranks the Cabinet members in order of importance. For years, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was ranked No. 2, but last October he was demoted to No. 4. Was that the unleashing of the forces of hell within the Cabinet Office?

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman is almost at the point of doing a PhD thesis on departmental responsibilities, so great is his fascination with the topic, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer is more focused on guiding this country out of recession and ensuring that people keep their jobs and that businesses survive the deepest global recession than he is on the list of departmental responsibilities.

Keith Vaz: I agree with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) that the document is very useful, but rather than a beauty contest-a list of who the Prime Minister likes at a certain time-it is something that many hon. Members use for the purpose of information. The problem is that, as soon as it is published, it is out of date. What is being done to ensure that Ministers' offices are aware of what their Ministers' responsibilities are? When members of my office have used that list to ring up Departments, they have found that the portfolios have changed.

Tessa Jowell: Perhaps I can undertake to ensure that a review is conducted to ensure that Ministers' specific responsibilities are accurately documented, for the convenience of Members across the House.

Nick Hurd: Why has the Cabinet Office refused to publish a list of Parliamentary Private Secretaries to accompany the list of Ministers? Is it because 12 PPS posts remain vacant since last June's ministerial reshuffle? Those are traditionally the first rungs of the ministerial ladder: ambitious Back Benchers-well represented today-should be stampeding to get a toehold. Do the vacancies reflect a lack of talent on the Labour Back Benches, or just a lack of appetite to serve the present Prime Minister?

Tessa Jowell: The people at home who may be gripped watching Cabinet Office questions will be bewildered by the Opposition's preoccupation with such matters when there are so many big issues facing our country, which every single Member listed in the directory of Ministers is focused on tackling, in the interests of the people they represent.

Civil Service Compensation Scheme

Julie Morgan: What recent progress has been made in negotiations on the civil service compensation scheme; and if she will make a statement.

Tessa Jowell: For the past 18 months, officials have been in discussion with the six main civil service unions to negotiate changes to the civil service compensation scheme to eliminate age discrimination, to protect the lowest paid and to deliver the savings of £500 million over three years committed to by the Prime Minister. The new scheme will be brought into effect from 1 April, with the agreement of five of the six civil service unions. The amendment scheme was laid before the House on 5 February. The Public and Commercial Services union rejected the new proposals and held industrial action on Monday and Tuesday this week.

Julie Morgan: I have thousands of civil servants working in my Cardiff, North constituency, particularly in Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs in Llanishen and Companies House in Gabalfa, and I met PCS representatives earlier this week. I urge my right hon. Friend to do all she can to settle the damaging dispute with the PCS. Will she return to the negotiating table to try to reach a settlement with the PCS?

Tessa Jowell: I want to be absolutely clear with my hon. Friend, who I know is very concerned about the position of civil servants in her constituency and who has represented their interests so diligently. There is no question of any further negotiation. The amendment scheme that gives effect to the changes, agreed by five of the six trade unions, has been laid before Parliament. It is a fair set of proposals, which deals with the issues of age discrimination that are persistent in the old proposals. The new scheme benefits the lowest paid and compares well with other schemes in the public sector. There is no question of reopening negotiations.

Gary Streeter: In Plymouth, we have hundreds of hard-working civil servants who have served the country very well indeed at the Land Registry. They are extremely concerned about how they are being treated by the Government in a change of terms of conditions without proper consultation. Why are the Government treating the Land Registry civil servants in Plymouth so badly?

Tessa Jowell: It is not the case that the interests of civil servants have been ignored, neglected or in any other way not treated with the direct integrity that is deserved in respect of the hard work of the thousands and thousands of civil servants who serve this country. The Land Registry civil servants will be subject in exactly the same way to the proposals under the new compensation scheme which, as I say, are particularly focused on benefiting the lowest paid.

Lindsay Hoyle: The loyal, diligent workers at the tax office in Chorley are being run down in numbers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is totally unacceptable to offer them jobs in the benefits and credits department, only for them to find out that in January that offer was withdrawn and they now face redundancy? Is that not the crisis that we are facing, and the reason why PCS is so unhappy? Will she look into the issue as a matter of urgency?

Tessa Jowell: I am happy to have further discussion with my hon. Friend about the concerns of civil servants in his constituency, but it is the intention that all negotiations are conducted in a way that accords dignity and respect to those civil servants who are subject to any changes.

Departmental Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Paul Holmes: What discussions she had with ministerial colleagues on reducing levels of carbon dioxide emissions attributable to the use of information and communications technology in Government Departments.

Angela Smith: My team and I have regular meetings and discussions with ministerial colleagues on all areas of Cabinet Office work, including the Greening Government ICT strategy. Through actions recommended in the strategy, good progress is already being made by Departments and we are recognised internationally as leaders in this area, with savings of £6.8 million and 12,000 tonnes of carbon savings, as is reported in our "One year on" report.

Paul Holmes: Carbon emissions from ICT are one part of a very poor picture overall. The Minister has received £681,000 of public money from the Department of Energy and Climate Change as part of a low-carbon technology scheme. Is she confident that that will be well spent when, of the 13 Cabinet Office buildings, none has received an energy efficient rating, and five, including Downing street, got a worse rating in 2008-09 than they did in the previous year?

Angela Smith: Yes. One reason why those buildings got a slightly worse rating was that there was more activity and staff worked later nights. However, that is still not acceptable, and we are ensuring that we put that money to good use to bring down carbon emissions across the estate.

Jennifer Willott: As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) said, IT is one element of the Government's carbon footprint. The latest figures show an increase in the amount of energy consumed by IT in some Departments, and Government buildings are shown to be among the least efficient in the country. Does the Minister agree that the announcement in December of less than £3 million for pilot projects to reduce emissions from Government buildings is too little, too late?

Angela Smith: The hon. Lady will not be surprised that I do not agree. Reducing energy use and carbon emissions produces savings as well. One of the results of the Greening Government ICT strategy that we are proud of is that, as we produce savings by reducing energy use, we can plough that money back into ensuring that we reduce carbon emissions still further. The money will be put to good use, and I can assure her that plans are on track for significantly reduced carbon emissions.

Grassroots Grants

David Anderson: How many local organisations have received grassroots grants from her Department in the last 12 months.

Angela Smith: I can announce today that from September 2008 to December 2009, the grassroots grants programme has provided over 15,500 grants to small charities and voluntary organisations, totalling more than £38 million. These grants are given to small groups across England to do what they think best meets the needs of their local communities. In addition, more than £17.5 million has been received in donations from businesses and individuals. That has been boosted by the Government to more than £31 million to support local activity in years to come.

David Anderson: Will the Minister join me in praising the Birtley community partnership in my constituency, and in particular the chairman, Mr. Ian Caddy, who was recently awarded the MBE by the Queen, for the work that they have done with the community assets programme to develop a community hub in our town from what was a derelict library?

Angela Smith: I can. The grassroots grants and community assets programmes are two of my favourite Government programmes for the sector, because they really involve the community in making a difference. My hon. Friend's constituent, whom he mentioned, really earned- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but there are far too many private conversations taking place in the Chamber. I might just tell the House at this point that since last Wednesday I have received a large number of letters from members of the public, whose support we will all be seeking in a few weeks' time and to whose views we should attach importance. Those letters have complained bitterly about the excessive noise, barracking and yah-boo behaviour in this House- [ Interruption. ] Somebody said from a sedentary position "shocking". As far as the public are concerned, it is shocking. It is nothing of which to be proud, and we do not need to hear any more of it.

Angela Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I may write to you myself on that issue.
	I wanted to say that my hon. Friend's constituent earned his MBE, and he should be very proud of that. I understand that his constituent is not very well at the moment, so I send him my personal best wishes and those of my colleagues for the work that he has done for the community.

Anne McIntosh: What proportion of those grants went to rural areas in that period?

Angela Smith: I can look in more detail at that, but the hon. Lady should know that the grants are issued throughout England and directly by community development foundations locally. If she is concerned that those who give out the grants in her area are not giving enough to rural areas, she should please let me know, because they should be fairly well spread across rural and urban areas and among young and older people. They are small grants of £250 to £5,000, and they are targeted at community groups. I am sure that her concerns can be assuaged if she looks at the issue and comes back to me.

Mr. Speaker: I call Sandra Gidley.

Lindsay Hoyle: rose-

Mr. Speaker: You have had a go.  [ Interruption. ] No, I call Sandra Gidley. You can always try on a supplementary.

ICT (External Consultants)

Sandra Gidley: How many external consultants have been recruited by her Department to work on ICT projects in the last three years.

Dawn Butler: The Department examines requirements for external consultancy on a case-by-case basis. Cabinet Office is committed in the long term to upskilling the IT department in order to ensure that we reduce the requirement for external resources, and we are building in-house the capacity, culture and skills that are needed to increase efficiency.

Sandra Gidley: If the Government are decreasing staff numbers and then giving the same jobs to consultants, how can we be sure that we are getting value for money? A neighbour who was working on a Government IT project within a Department refused to relocate and was then redeployed by a consultancy firm at a much higher salary. How can that sort of example represent value for money?

Dawn Butler: It is important that we consider a couple of areas. For instance, from 1 April 2009 the Cabinet Office required all proposed procurements for external resources to be approved by the external resources board. External resources are used only when the external supplier offers skills or resources that are not available within a Department, and offers value for money.  [Interruption.] That, coupled with the upskilling of internal ICT departments, will ensure that the Department does secure value for money.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do hope that the House will come to order. It is very discourteous to the Minister who is answering the question at the Dispatch Box for people to sit wittering away to each other as though their conversations are more important than the answer. They are not.

Joan Walley: May I say how much I agree with you, Mr. Speaker? It is so important that people at home can hear what is being said.
	On consultants, may I say to my hon. Friend how important it is that we secure local procurement for the various contracts that exist? It is important to ensure that, when ICT is procured, there are local jobs for local people.

Dawn Butler: I thank my hon. Friend for championing, and ensuring that we have, local jobs for local people. We have to consider value for money and whether we have the skills in-house to provide the services and IT strategies that we need.

Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister very kindly stop this assault on the English language? Can we drop these awful terms, such as "upskilling" and "third sector"?

Dawn Butler: Upskilling is now a recognised and understandable term. I apologise if the hon. Gentleman is put off by it, but I explain to him that it means that we will educate people further in the necessary skills that they need in order to do the job. I hope that that makes it clearer to him.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked-

Engagements

Richard Benyon: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 March.

Gordon Brown: I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the sacrifice of soldiers who have lost their lives in Afghanistan. They are: Rifleman Jonathon Allott; Rifleman Liam Maughan, from 3rd Battalion the Rifles; Lance Corporal Thomas Keogh, from 4th Battalion the Rifles, attached to 3rd Battalion the Rifles; and Corporal Stephen Thompson, from 1st Battalion the Rifles, attached to 3rd Battalion the Rifles. These men have made the greatest of sacrifices in the service of their country and their comrades. Their heroism and bravery cannot, and will not, be forgotten. Their legacy will be in the future that is being won for the people of Afghanistan and the protection they are securing for the British people. They will be remembered with great pride by the British people and by their families. As we honour their memory, we send our sincere condolences to their families and loved ones, who feel their loss the most. The debt that we owe them can never be repaid.
	The whole House, I think, will want also to pay tribute to the life of Michael Foot. He will be remembered as a man of deep principle and passionate idealism who was, in the views of many in all parts of this House, the greatest parliamentary debater of his generation.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Richard Benyon: The whole House will want to concur with the words of condolence that the Prime Minister has offered to those members of the Rifles who lost their lives. For those of us who served with the regiment that has now become the Rifles, we feel the loss of the families very intensely, but it is matched with pride at what that regiment has become and what it is today.
	The Army Families Federation has carried out postal trials which prove that it is unlikely that the vast majority of our armed forces serving overseas will be able to vote in the coming election. Will the Prime Minister intervene to ensure that we do not have the perverse situation whereby we have people fighting abroad for others to have the right to vote, but we are denying them that right themselves?

Gordon Brown: I repeat and endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said, not only about the regiment that he is talking about but about the bravery of the individual soldiers. I also say to him that the Justice Secretary is making the best arrangements possible so that every soldier and every member of the armed forces overseas who has a vote will be able to cast their vote. I will personally write to the hon. Gentleman about all the arrangements that are being made. It is absolutely right that everyone should have the chance to cast their vote in every election.

David Drew: I ask to be associated with the remarks on the loss of life, and on the late lamented Michael Foot.I believe that my right hon. Friend is in favour of full financial disclosure by parliamentarians. With that in mind, will he assure me that the Cabinet Office is currently undertaking an investigation into the tax returns of the noble Lord Ashcroft?

Gordon Brown: I have been involved in no such investigation of Lord Ashcroft. I have to tell the House that I believe the assurances that were made in December 2007 that Lord Ashcroft was paying his taxes and was a resident in Britain. These assurances were given to us in an interview by the Leader of the Opposition.

David Cameron: May I first echo what the Prime Minister said about Michael Foot? Obviously, I did not serve with him in the Commons, but I have always admired his writing, his brilliant oratory and, above all, his dedication to this House of Commons. While I did not agree with much of what he said, not least about the Soviet Union and disarmament, he held all his views with conviction and with passion, and that is how we should remember him.
	May I also join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the four servicemen who have lost their lives in Afghanistan in the past seven days: Corporal Stephen Thompson, Lance Corporal Tom Keogh, Rifleman Liam Maughan and Rifleman Jonathon Allott. We pay tribute to their bravery and their service, and, as the Prime Minister said, we will not forget what they have done.
	Yesterday, we had the inquest into the deaths of four soldiers in Afghanistan in 2008. At the time the Defence Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), linked their deaths to the commanders' choice of vehicle. That was flatly contradicted by what the coroner said, so will the Prime Minister now apologise on behalf of his Minister?

Gordon Brown: The Minister apologised at the time, and I repeat that apology. The issue for me is, first of all, that our thoughts must be with the families of Corporal Sarah Bryant, Corporal Sean Reeve, Lance Corporal Richard Larkin and Trooper Paul Stout. They also died serving their country and building a safer Afghanistan, and therefore a safer Britain.
	I have read the coroner's report from the inquest. That report will go to the Ministry of Defence, which has said it will look at every detail that is raised by the coroner and take whatever action is necessary. There are really three areas that have got to be looked at, and we have to be absolutely sure that everything possible is being done. The first is on vehicles themselves. We have ordered 1,800 new vehicles since 2006 at a cost of £1.7 billion to make sure that we have the vehicles that are necessary for the commanders on the ground.
	Secondly, on training, we have made sure that the training is better, and it will be improved for those who are going to Afghanistan. Thirdly, on improvised explosive devices, as everybody knows, the guerrilla warfare in Iraq and in Afghanistan led to IEDs starting to be used, and we had to take extra measures to deal with that. We have improved our engineering capability and our surveillance capability, and we now have 3,000 mine detector machines on the ground for our troops. That will double over the next few months. We are doing everything we can to deal with the IED threat, so we are answering legitimate questions that have been raised.
	I hope that we can also pay tribute to the dignity with which the parents of those who died spoke yesterday. The dignity they showed is something that I believe impressed everybody throughout all the country.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister has now apologised for something that should never have been said by the Minister, and the House will be grateful for that.
	From that apology, let me turn to the broader issue of the Prime Minister's evidence to the Chilcot inquiry. Following his evidence, one former Chief of the Defence Staff said that he was being "disingenuous" and another said that he was "dissembling". Both those people worked with the Prime Minister- [ Interruption. ] Oh, it is because they are Tories, is it? That is what this tribalist, divisive Government think about people who serve our country. I think, first of all, the Prime Minister should get up and dissociate himself completely from what those people behind him have said.

Gordon Brown: It is common cause within this House that we support the campaign in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and it is common cause also that we do not send our troops into battle without the commanders assuring us that they are properly equipped for the operations they are undertaking. In every instance where the Ministry of Defence asked for equipment under urgent operational requirements, that equipment was given.
	If I may say so, as far as vehicles are concerned, the Leader of the Opposition praised us last summer for what we had done to increase the number of vehicles in Afghanistan. If we are talking about these issues, let us find where the common ground is rather than where there is division.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister's Members of Parliament have questioned the integrity of people who have served this country, fought for this country and are essays in the bravery of this country. Before we go on, he has got to get to that Dispatch Box and dissociate himself from those disgraceful remarks.

Gordon Brown: I have never at any time criticised the patriotism of anybody who has been involved in the defence establishment of this country. I think we should have a debate about this that is both serious and based on facts. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that every request that was made to us by the Ministry of Defence for urgent operational requirements was met. We have spent £18 billion in Afghanistan and Iraq, on top of the MOD budget. I assure the House that every time our commanders go into action, I ask them for an assurance that they have the equipment they need for the operation. I want to applaud the patriotism of everyone who serves our country, and so does the vast majority of this House.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister has given us a lecture this morning outside the House on character, but he does not have the character to stand up to his own Back Benchers-it is a disgraceful slur.
	It was not just Chiefs of the Defence Staff who said this. We have had a former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence talking about a guillotine budget, a serving permanent secretary talking about a serious dispute between the Treasury and the MOD, and a former commander of the Paras in Afghanistan saying that he was
	"staggered by the lack of any sense of responsibility"
	from the Prime Minister. Why does the Prime Minister think that all those people, who are dedicated to the defence of this country, are wrong, while only he is right?

Gordon Brown: I put the facts before the inquiry on Friday. I said to the inquiry very clearly first of all that the expenditure of the Ministry of Defence has been rising in real terms under this Government. I also said that in addition to that expenditure, £8 billion had been spent in Iraq, and that we are spending £9 billion in Afghanistan.
	I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that the Chief of the Defence Staff has said on record that we are the best equipped force that we have ever been. That is the person who-both on the ground and in his position-has got to satisfy himself that the forces have the equipment they need. I also have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I am going to take no lectures on integrity from the man who will not answer even one question about Lord Ashcroft- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Government Back Benchers must calm down-we must hear Mr. David Cameron.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister talks about the former Chiefs of the Defence Staff. The fact is that one said that the Prime Minister was "dissembling", and the other said he was "disingenuous". The Prime Minister answers every question by talking about urgent operational requirements. Of course the Government never rejected those, but they never thought about what that meant for the defence budget. The fact is that the Prime Minister has tried to fight two wars on a peacetime budget. Will he confirm that when he was Chancellor, the Treasury massively underestimated the cost of the war in Afghanistan?

Gordon Brown: No. I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the defence budget has been rising every year. He might have had a complaint if we were cutting the defence budget every year, but it is rising every year. The only time the defence budget has been cut was in the 10 years before 1997, when it was cut by 30 per cent. by a Conservative Government-by half a billion a year. The shadow Defence Secretary has had to apologise for the cuts that the Conservatives made.

David Cameron: The reason the defence budget fell in the '90s is that under the Conservatives, we won the cold war- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Twigg, I am quite worried about you-calm down.

David Cameron: And we all remember who was wearing the CND badges at the time.
	I asked the Prime Minister a very specific question: did he underestimate the cost of the war in Afghanistan? I have a freedom of information request saying that the cost of the war was estimated at hundreds of millions of pounds, but the cost this year is £4 billion. Is it not the case that we have Ministers blaming commanders, a Prime Minister failing to take responsibility, and a Government who have been found out? Should not everyone conclude that they failed to plan, failed to act, failed to prepare, and failed in their duty of care?

Gordon Brown: First of all on defence, the right hon. Gentleman cannot deny the fact that the budget is rising every year in real terms, and he cannot deny, when he raises the question of Afghanistan, the fact that we have now spent £9 billion on Afghanistan. That is on top of the defence budget. As for his talk about the cold war: talk about him asking for no partisanship in the House of Commons! I seem to remember that he was at school at the time.
	The Conservative party talks about the new politics, but how can there be new politics with Lord Ashcroft? The Conservative party talks about modernisation, but how can there be modernisation with Lord Ashcroft? And the Conservative party talks about change. How can it ever change as long as Lord Ashcroft is vice-chairman of their party?  [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already told Mr. Twigg that I am worried about him. Mr. Burns, your heckling is as boring as it is boorish. Stop it or leave the Chamber: I do not mind which.

Neil Turner: Wigan has 19 Sure Start centres. Beech Hill primary school is following Westfield, Woodfield and Canon Sharples schools in being rebuilt, and all our secondary schools are being rebuilt through the Building Schools for the Future programme. Can my right hon. Friend guarantee that any Government led by him will continue to invest in our children, the citizens of my constituency and our country?

Gordon Brown: I can tell the House that we have now built 3,400 Sure Start children's centres. There were none in 1997, but now there are five or six in every constituency in England. Three and four-year-olds are now entitled to a free part-time early education place. If the Conservative party persists in its policy of cutting Sure Start children's centres to serve a minority of children, millions of children will lose out on early education and the whole country will suffer.

Nicholas Clegg: I wish to add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the families and friends of Corporal Stephen Thompson, from 1st Battalion the Rifles; Lance Corporal Tom Keogh, from 4th Battalion the Rifles; Rifleman Liam Maughan, from 3rd Battalion the Rifles; and Rifleman Jonathon Allott, from 3rd Battalion the Rifles. All tragically lost their lives serving bravely and selflessly in Afghanistan this week.
	I also wish to add my tribute and that of my colleagues to the late and lamented Michael Foot. As we know from the warm tributes paid earlier, he was a great parliamentarian, a great orator and a great intellectual, but above all a man of great integrity.
	Today's report from the National Audit Office lifts the lid on Labour's dark secret. Thirteen years of tough talk on crime has actually turned our prisons into colleges of crime. Repeat crime, as the report shows, now costs the taxpayer £10 billion a year and the human cost of tens of thousands of victims is even higher. Will the Prime Minister now admit the truth-that this Government are not tough on criminals, because they are turning the young offenders of today into the hardened criminals of tomorrow?

Gordon Brown: I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman the facts. Reoffending among young people is down 25 per cent. Whatever he says, he has to face up to the fact that crime is down in this country, violent crime is down in this country and the number of police in this country has gone up. People have a right to feel safer and we are doing more with neighbourhood policing. He cannot give the House information that he cannot back up with the statistics.

Nicholas Clegg: How can the Prime Minister defend a record in which nine out of every 10 young men who go into prison on short-term sentences go out and commit another crime within two years? Under Labour, prison is not working. He is spending 11 times more on locking children up than on stopping them committing crime in the first place. Will he not admit that he talks tough on crime and ignores the evidence, but it is the victims who end up paying the price?

Gordon Brown: Again, the right hon. Gentleman cannot ignore the facts. There are 20,000 more prison places. Adult reoffending has fallen and youth reoffending has fallen. If he would support us on CCTV and DNA, we might be more able to catch criminals at the right time and in the right place. I share with him a desire to prevent young people from reoffending, and a desire that prison is better at educating people for the future, but he cannot ignore the advances that have been made or that youth reoffending is down 25 per cent.

Fiona Mactaggart: In this week which includes international women's day and mothers' day, is the Prime Minister aware that Mumsnet is organising a group of women to come to the House on Friday to remind us all that 500,000 women around the world die in childbirth every year, and 2 million children die on the first day of their lives? Will he commit to action to reduce the number of deaths among women giving birth and newly born children?

Gordon Brown: I applaud the work done by my hon. Friend, the White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood and other organisations to highlight the avoidable loss of maternal life during childbirth and the damage arising from the fact that the children born are without mothers. The themes of the G8 this year will be to make advances on maternal mortality, and to ensure that mothers are better prepared and given better help. It is not a huge amount of money that each mother needs to have a safe pregnancy, but it is vital that together we all ensure that those supplies are available. To reduce maternal and infant mortality is one of the great causes of our time. I hope that the whole House can support that cause.

Richard Bacon: The Prime Minister referred earlier to vehicles, training and IEDs as the three issues that now need to be examined, but the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner, David Masters, made it clear that the soldiers whom the Prime Minister named earlier were killed unlawfully-that was the verdict-because they had unsuitable vehicles, inadequate training and insufficient bomb-detection equipment. Why would he send people into battle with unsuitable vehicles, inadequate training and insufficient bomb-detection equipment?

Gordon Brown: Before any operation is carried out, we ask those in charge whether they have the equipment needed to undertake it. We are dealing here with a situation in which four people in a Snatch Land Rover faced a huge mine that blew up. At that stage, the mining detection equipment was not as good as it is now. It is a lot better now, and we have learned lessons over the past few years, which is why I say that 6,000 mine detectors will be out in Afghanistan in the next few months. On training, the Ministry of Defence has already said that training has improved and that it will look again at how it can improve further.
	On Snatch Land Rovers, the hon. Gentleman will know that in 2006, we decided, on the recommendation of the Chiefs of Staff, to allocate £90 million to buying Mastiffs, Ridgbacks and other vehicles. He will also know that a contract for 200 light protected patrol vehicles to replace Snatch has been awarded in the past few days. Everything we can do to ensure that our vehicles are safer is being done, which is why 1,100 new vehicles have been made available since 2006 and why we spent £1.8 billion on it. I cannot bring these soldiers back to life, but I can assure him, and the soldiers' families, that we are doing everything we can to ensure that training is improved, equipment against mines is better and the vehicles in which people drive are safe.

David Winnick: Michael Foot and the Labour party never needed, and do not need now, any lectures in patriotism. He was one of the greatest patriots this country has ever had. In the light of the speech given by the former head of MI5 yesterday, will the Prime Minister tell us when protests were made to the United States over the barbaric use of torture? When did MI5 officers know what was happening, and is it not clear from our experience in Northern Ireland that such torture as used in the United States is counter-productive and will not help in the fight against terrorism?

Gordon Brown: We do not support or condone torture; we condemn torture. Any allegations of torture will go to the proper authorities to be investigated.

Paul Burstow: Last week, 170 families in Sutton Cheam and Worcester park learned that their children had not been offered a place at the local high school in my constituency. That means that many boys and girls in my area are the casualties of an unfair admissions system that has condemned them to go to schools that are unpopular and miles away from their homes. Will the Prime Minister look at my private Member's Bill setting out proposals to deal with that issue, and will he take the steps necessary to ensure that no child gets left behind in this way again?

Gordon Brown: At the moment, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the admissions framework ensures that all parents are free to consider the right school, not just the nearest. Last year more than 85 per cent. of Sutton parents secured one of their three most preferred schools. I recognise the intention behind his comments, but I have to tell him that anything that narrows the range of schools available to all families is not something we can support.

John Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend allay my fears and those of my constituents about the two carriers, and not do what the Leader of the Opposition, in his feigned anger, and his defence spokesman have done, which is to say that they will open up any contracts and look for break clauses on day one of the next Government?

Gordon Brown: Once again, we are committed to the aircraft carriers and to the programme that is necessary for the Navy and for the defence of our country. We are going ahead with the aircraft carrier programme because we believe, on the recommendations of our defence staff, that it is the right thing to do. My hon. Friend is right that it would be far better if there was all-party consensus on the issue and if we had support from the Opposition on the aircraft carriers. Their silence on this issue today suggests that they cannot commit themselves to the aircraft programme; and as the shadow Chancellor has hinted, it may be one of the first cuts under a Conservative Government. The public are owed an answer from the Conservatives about what their position really is.

Ann Widdecombe: In view of the answer that the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) a few moments ago, could he say why, when stillbirths are running at more than 3,600, and deaths of children in the first seven days of life are running at more than 1,700, he has yet to implement the recommendations of the neonatal taskforce that reported to the Government last year?

Gordon Brown: I do know a lot about this issue, and I know about the problems that arise. I know that there are issues affecting health inequalities, as well as issues of medicine involved, and I assure the right hon. Lady that we are doing everything we can to reduce the number of infant deaths and to ensure, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) earlier, that mothers too are safe in childbirth. I can assure the right hon. Lady that we will do everything that we can.

William Bain: I am sure that the House will join me in offering condolences to the family of those who died so tragically in my constituency on Sunday. Turning to the economy, does my right hon. Friend share the view of the executive board of the International Monetary Fund and a growing band of leading economists, including Sir Alan Budd, that to slash public investment this year would drive us back into recession and destroy jobs?

Gordon Brown: I share the condolences that my hon. Friend has expressed for those who died in his constituency on Sunday. It is not just Sir Alan Budd, the senior adviser to the Conservative party on fiscal policy, who has said that we cannot remove the fiscal stimulus now; it is every sensible piece of opinion and every sensible expert opinion in this country and other countries. How the Conservatives can be in a position where they want to cut public spending now, at the moment when the recovery is fragile, I do not know. They were wrong on the issues as we entered the recession, they were wrong in calling for cuts at the height of the recession, and they are now wrong in calling for cuts as we try to escape the recession. On every major economic policy question they have been wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Ann Winterton: Will the Prime Minister give an unequivocal commitment that no Labour Government will renege on the opt-out negotiated in the 1972 European Communities accession treaty to zero-rate value added tax on food, children's clothes, newspapers and books?

Gordon Brown: We made a decision in November not to go ahead with VAT, but to go ahead with a national insurance rise. In fact, traditionally the party that has raised VAT is the Conservative party. The Conservatives raised it from 8 to 15 per cent., and then to 17.5 per cent. The Tory tax is VAT, and they have imposed it many, many times.

Hugh Bayley: Was it not under a Labour Government that NATO was created, and does the Prime Minister agree that it was British soldiers from all political parties and no political party who joined our forces throughout the cold war to defeat Soviet expansionism? And does he not recall that it was Governments of all colours-

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have got the question.

Gordon Brown: I think it is important in this House that people recognise where there is agreement and where there is not. There is agreement on our membership of NATO, and there was agreement on what we had to do to end the cold war. There has been agreement that we need to finance our defence forces more, and there has been agreement that we needed to take action in Iraq and Afghanistan- [ Interruption. ] And I have to say that, for the Conservatives to reduce big issues to ridicule shows just how juvenile their behaviour in this House is.

Norman Baker: It is unfair on rail passengers and contrary to the Government's carbon reduction strategy that, since 1997, the cost of motoring has decreased by 14 per cent. while the cost of rail fares has gone up in real terms by 13 per cent. Given that a large reason for this is the Government's policy of forcing up rail fares by 1 per cent. above inflation every single year, will the Prime Minister now give the House and the country an assurance that, if a Labour Government are re-elected, they will end their RPI plus 1 policy and their train fare escalator?

Gordon Brown: The railways are carrying more passengers and more freight than ever since the second world war, and we will be announcing plans tomorrow to expand our railways to ensure that we have the most modern railways for the future. I believe that passengerswelcome the fact not only that we have better services but that trains arrive on time. It is important to recognise the huge investment that this Government have made in the railways of this country.

Barry Sheerman: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the insidious campaign of the Murdoch empire to undermine public service broadcasting in general and the BBC in particular? As we approach the general election, will he affirm that this Government support public service broadcasting and the BBC?

Gordon Brown: What worries me more is the Conservative campaign to undermine the BBC, Ofcom and British Telecom. The Conservatives have made announcements that put at risk the future of digitalisation and broadband in this country. We are determined that everyone in this country has access to broadband and access to the best services. The Conservative policy would make sure that 100 per cent. did not have full access.

Points of Order

Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition did not mean to mislead the House when he said that Michael Foot was a friend of the Soviet Union. Michael was a staunch anti-Stalinist and a critic of the Soviet Union. When I was put in prison by the communists in Warsaw for supporting Solidarity, Michael Foot came to support my release, at a time when Margaret Thatcher was denying visas to Poles who were trying to escape from communism. We need to learn some history, which the Leader of the Opposition is wholly incapable of.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his attempted point of order. With his customary force and clarity, he has put his views on the record. I must say to him and to the House that I was, of course, listening very carefully to what the Leader of the Opposition said-I always listen carefully to what every right hon. and hon. Member says-and my distinct recollection is that he referred to his disagreement with the views of Mr. Foot on the subject of nuclear disarmament- [ Interruption. ] Will the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) let me finish?  [ Interruption. ] Order. I will deal with this. The right hon. Gentleman has asked me for a ruling, and he is going to get it. He ought to listen to my ruling, which I hope the House will do as well. The Leader of the Opposition said that he disagreed with Mr. Foot's views on nuclear weapons and on the Soviet Union, but he certainly did not accuse him of supporting the Soviet Union-

Denis MacShane: rose-

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to get into any further debate on the matter, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman seriously expects me to do so.

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can we celebrate an unusual occasion-namely, an apology from a Secretary of State? Is there a way of putting it on the official  Hansard record? The Speaker will know that-

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to cut the hon. Gentleman off; it is always a pleasure to listen to his mellifluous tones. Even as he is delivering his attempted point of order, however, he is barely able to conceal his smile, for the simple reason that he knows perfectly well that what he is saying does not constitute a point of order-

Michael Fabricant: rose-

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has put his views on the official record- [ Interruption. ] Well, he has as far as I am concerned, and he is not going to have the opportunity to do so any further. I have made my position clear, and I shall brook no contradiction.

Graham Stuart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you, as a defender of Back-Bencher rights, to help me? I wrote to the Prime Minister on 14 January about Lord Paul, who you may remember, Mr. Speaker, drove the Armstrong pension fund into deficit, robbing thousands of their rightful pensions. I wrote to the Prime Minister on behalf of my constituents asking how that man could become a Privy Counsellor when he fulfilled none of the criteria required to become one. As I said, I wrote on 14 January with a legitimate question about someone who sits in the other place, but, as far as I can see, has no right to be a Privy Counsellor. I have had no reply, so can you help me, Mr. Speaker, to elicit a reply from a Prime Minister who will not answer questions?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, who is an assiduous attender and is frequently inclined to raise points of order, but I am afraid that what he said was not a point of order, but a point of frustration. Let me make two observations for his benefit and for that of the House. First, I remind the hon. Gentleman that Members should not criticise Members of the other place other than on a substantive motion. I have had reason to make this point before, and I hope that I shall not have to keep repeating it.  [Interruption.] Order. I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman; he should be grateful to me, although he shows no sign of it. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman refers to a letter that he has sent. I know that he attaches enormous importance to his letter, and so do I, but a letter is not a parliamentary question, so it does not constitute a parliamentary proceeding.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Fabricant will have to wait a moment. He has already had one go and I will give him another in a moment.

Norman Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is on a similar matter and I wonder whether you can help me. I wrote to the Prime Minister on 11 November about a serious matter-what I believe to be prima facie evidence of a serious breach of the ministerial code by the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair. I have had one acknowledgement. I subsequently wrote to the Prime Minister again on 19 January and 9 February, but he shows no sign of wishing to respond to this serious matter. There is every indication that he wants to get past the election before replying. Can you help me, Mr. Speaker, in any way to secure a proper reply to this most serious issue?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman rarely requires any help in the pursuit of his political campaigns. I had an advance inkling of his intended point of order, but the problem is that it is not a point of order for the Chair. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman why not. First, it relates to a letter. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) attaches as much importance to his letter as does the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) to his, but it does not constitute a parliamentary proceeding. That is the first point. The second is that I am not responsible for the ministerial code. The hon. Member for Lewes may well think that I should be, and I am grateful to him for his support and encouragement, but I am not.

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families has apologised to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) in a letter-not my letter, but his letter. How can it get broader publicity and be recorded in the House?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is abusing points of order. I have the highest regard for the hon. Gentleman, but when he talks about how to achieve wider publicity, he knows that he has achieved his objective. He should not abuse our procedures any further.

Stephen Ladyman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether you noticed in this morning's obituary columns the passing of Andrée Peel, who was known as "agent X" in the second world war and saved the lives of many hundreds of allied servicemen before being tortured and put in a concentration camp. There seems to be no clear mechanism by which Members can pay their respects to the passing of great people such as this gallant lady, so I wondered whether you, Mr. Speaker, would give some consideration to providing such a mechanism in the future.

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we debated parliamentary reform last Thursday, but it is of course a matter of continuing business. I am very open to suggestions from the hon. Gentleman and others, but in the short term, it is open to him to table an early-day motion to express his admiration for the deceased individual. In the light of what he has said about her, he might well find that he could muster quite a lot of support.

Ann Widdecombe: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. I was getting worried because my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) has had two points of order and I had not had any. Over the last 13 years, I have asked you, Mr. Speaker, your predecessors, the Cabinet Secretary, almighty God and just about anyone I can think of to try to get the Government to answer questions-not letters, but questions, which are parliamentary proceedings, Mr. Speaker. What recourse do Back Benchers have against the Government from the Prime Minister downwards when Ministers are determined not to answer questions?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her point of order. What I would say to her is this. First, we introduced, very recently, a tracking system whereby information on which questions had been answered by Departments and which had not would be publicly available. It was my hope, and that of others in the House, that that mechanism of transparency would be a sufficient spur to trigger speedier responses than Members had been receiving. I think that the right hon. Lady should exercise a degree of patience-

Ann Widdecombe: I have not got long.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Lady has a long time left on the planet, albeit probably not much time left in the House.
	I hope that that system will have the desired effect. However, let me also say to the right hon. Lady and to Ministers that when Members table parliamentary questions, they are entitled to speedy and substantive replies.
	The right hon. Lady should know that I have often discussed this matter with the Leader of the House. I know that the Leader of the House attaches great importance to it and constantly drives Ministers to respond more quickly, but we will clearly have to step up our efforts. If the right hon. Lady is asking me whether I am open to the idea that new measures might be required in a subsequent Parliament to bring about improvement, I can assure her that I am as open-minded about that as I am about most other matters.

Michael Gove: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noted that earlier, during the heated exchanges that characterise Prime Minister's Question Time, a number of Labour Back Benchers said that Cross Benchers in another place-specifically Lords Guthrie and Boyce-were Tories. They attributed to distinguished public servants political partiality. May we have a ruling on the appropriateness of Members of this House accusing Members of another House who are distinguished public servants of speaking from a partisan position, when all that they have ever done throughout their careers is stand up for the principle of public service?

Mr. Speaker: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said-with his usual alacrity-and my response is that I think that, albeit with the most public-spirited motives, he is seeking to continue an earlier argument or debate, and I do not think that that would be seemly today.
	Let me add for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman that the utterances to which he was referring were delivered from a sedentary position. The Members concerned were not on their feet, and it was not easy for me-particularly given the amount of noise and hubbub-to see precisely who was guilty. But I will keep an eye on it, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will encourage me in my efforts to do so.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chope has been very patient. We must give him a go.

Christopher Chope: I am normally very patient, Mr. Speaker.
	On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to motion 7 on today's Order Paper, which stands in the name of the Financial Secretary? It calls on the House to authorise the amazing sum of £23,893,853,000, which represents excess expenditure by the Government in the year ending 31 March 2009. I think that that is probably the largest sum of money that any Government have ever spent in excess of any supplementary estimate or authorisation of the House.
	As you will know, Mr. Speaker, this matter goes to the heart of the purpose of being in this legislature, which is to hold the Government to account on issues of expenditure. How will we be able to hold a debate on the motion under the rules of the House, given that it has been tabled in a form that precludes debate and only allows it to go through on the nod or following a vote? It has been said that it would then be incorporated in a Consolidated Fund Bill, but it would not be possible for us to debate that either.
	Perhaps your Clerk is advising you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is under the control of the Public Accounts Committee. I am advised that the Public Accounts Committee was told that it had no authority to do anything other than allow the motion to be tabled on the Order Paper and to be nodded through.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I think that I have heard enough of what he has to say to be able to formulate a coherent response. I am grateful to him for his attempts at lip reading, or simply at hearing the advice of the Clerks, but I am afraid that on this occasion he is mistaken in his supposition as to the views of the Clerks. I know that the hon. Gentleman has both an active mind and a fertile imagination, but in this case he is getting ahead of himself. We have not got to that matter yet. We will get to it in due course. I know that the hon. Gentleman deprecates the fact that there will be no opportunity for a debate on it, but it will be conducted in accordance with the agreed procedures of the House. The hon. Gentleman is nothing but an enthusiastic proceduralist and so there will be an opportunity, if he remains dissatisfied, to divide the House. That is something on matters of this kind to which the hon. Gentleman is no stranger.

Christopher Chope: Further to that point of order-

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting very excited. I shall take a point of order from him once more, but I appeal to Members to calm down-there was a point at which I thought that the House was going to have a collective fit. The national health service has enough responsibility as it is outside this House.

Christopher Chope: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will appreciate the difference between having a chance for a debate and just having a vote. Since this is, as you rightly say, an issue of procedure, should Government excesses of the order of £23 billion appear on the Order Paper in future, would you recommend that the Procedure Committee should look into the issue to decide whether it should be subject to a debate rather than going through on the nod or on a vote?

Mr. Speaker: What I would say to the hon. Gentleman-this becomes curiouser and curiouser-is that I am well aware, because I made the point myself, that the matter is subject to a vote but not to a debate. I am genuinely a little surprised and even tickled that the hon. Gentleman should suggest that I invite the Procedure Committee to consider this matter. The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished and celebrated member of the said Committee and he has never before required any encouragement from me to press for a Committee of which he is a member to consider a matter.

Christopher Chope: indicated dissent.

Mr. Speaker: There is no point in the hon. Gentleman shaking his head in evident disapproval of what is being said from the Chair. The procedure on this matter, I should emphasise to all attending to our proceedings, is a procedure of the House on which the House has agreed. It was not decreed by me. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want to convey any contrary impression.

Evan Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that the Leader of the House is in her place-or nearly in her place-for this point of order. Last Thursday, historically, the House agreed without a Division to set up a Back-Bench Business Committee in time for the start of the next Parliament. Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that the only way that can be done is if a Standing Order is passed in this Parliament to do that job? Will you further confirm that, at least for the time being, that Standing Order can only be put on the agenda above the line by the Government? Finally, will you confirm that, given that the House has spoken overwhelmingly in favour of the matter, it would be a block to necessary and voted-for reform and would, indeed, defy the will of the House if that Standing Order were not brought forward by this Government in this Parliament to be passed and to implement the will of the House as voted for last Thursday?

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House is present and may want to respond, but the hon. Gentleman's supposition about the Standing Order is, in my judgment, correct and work is in hand. I know that he is by nature-perhaps rightly-of a suspicious disposition, but I do not think that he should be too suspicious. If the Leader of the House wants to comment, she is welcome to do so but she is under no obligation.

Harriet Harman: Further to that point of order, I can reassure the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) that of course we will not defy the will of the House. We are completely clear that once a resolution is passed by the House that requires Standing Orders to put it into effect, that is what will happen next. Throughout all this, there has been a climate of unwarranted suspicion. We should all be pleased and gratified with the progress that has been made and the hon. Gentleman should be confident that further progress will be made.

Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I should say that we have other business to which to attend and I think that people will realise that I have been very generous. I have been very generous to the hon. Member for Lichfield, but I think that I am going to make him wait a little.

Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the Indian Parliament and Canadian Parliament, they have a period, known as the zero hour in the Indian Parliament, in which Members can raise any subject they wish for a limited time-about a minute. We have just spent nearly 20 minutes on points of order, very few of which were genuine points of order. In your consideration of reform of Parliament, should we not have our own zero hour where people can raise any matters they wish for a limited period?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I think that one point is noted and that the other is for the Procedure Committee. I am grateful on this occasion, as I am always to the hon. Member, for his helpful point of order.

Graham Stuart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but I hope that we are getting near to the end. I think that people might be interested in hearing other matters debated.

Graham Stuart: Further to my earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker-thank you for the decision that you made then-may I ask for your help regarding the fact that, last week, the Leader of the House, who is almost in her place, made entirely unwarranted and unfounded allegations about the noble Lord Ashcroft, who has entirely met all the promises-

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I have been extremely fair in taking a lot of points of order and in trying genuinely to respond in detail to them. It is not right to abuse the procedure of making points of order to develop, extend or start debates. We have important matters to consider. May I just say that I have appreciated a lot of good humour, and I have also noted some bad temper, but that we really ought to have some regard in this House to the way in which we are perceived by the voters whose support we shall shortly be seeking and who pay our salaries? They do not want this House to behave in a disrespectful or abusive way, or to waste time.

Graham Stuart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, I am not going to take a further point of order from the hon. Gentleman. I have been very generous.

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you could explain something. If an hon. or right hon. Gentleman inadvertently misleads the House in the Chamber and subsequently admits outside the Chamber that he has inadvertently misled the House, how can that be put on the record? If something is not published in  Hansard in detail, explaining what has been said and what was subsequently admitted to be wrong, surely it will be giving a misleading and wrong impression to the public whom we wish to serve.

Mr. Speaker: The difficulty with the hon. Gentleman's point of order is that he is expressing himself in hypothetical terms.  [ Interruption. ] Order. It is not reasonable therefore for him to expect me to reply.  [ Interruption. ] I have seen a letter on this matter, but I am not sure that it quite warrants the description that he has just offered.  [ Interruption. ] Order. He should calm himself. What I would say to him is that if he is genuinely interested in exploring this matter further, it is open to him-and perhaps I encourage him-to write to me about it. I will study his letter with care and if anything disorderly has taken place, he will learn about that.
	I was genuinely sorry to see the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness in a state of some angst and obviously feeling that he had a justified grievance. I do not think that he did have, but I am going to be fair to him. If he wants to have one more go, he can, but he had better not take any liberties.

Graham Stuart: I am extremely grateful, Mr. Speaker. That is most kind. You rightly ruled that Members of the other House should not be maligned in this place without a substantive motion coming before the House. When that happens, however, and it seemed to me that it happened last week to the noble Lord Ashcroft at the hands of the Leader of the House, of all people, is there anything that can be done to rectify it? Perhaps I am being unfair, but it feels as though a Back Bencher such as myself would be fallen upon very quickly and very hard, but that the Leader of the House was able repeatedly to malign the noble Lord Ashcroft in, to my mind, an entirely unfounded and unwarranted way.

Mr. Speaker: Members of this House should use their privileges in a responsible way. What I said about the substantive motion stands. The hon. Gentleman will be the first to accept that I cannot rewrite or excise the record, and it would be totally wrong and improper for me to do so. I can only reiterate that people should behave in a proper way. If I intervened to stop someone from saying something, it was because I judged that the line had been crossed, but it is not always a straightforward, yes or no, black or white matter. Many things were said of which the hon. Gentleman might have disapproved but which were not disorderly. I hope that he will regard me as a fair-minded referee who is doing his best to protect the rights of Members of the House. I think that is enough said.

Harriet Harman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that it is in no way out of order for matters to be discussed in this House that are the subject of big controversy outside the House? Is it not the case that you have sought to make what we debate in the House more topical and better matched to issues of public concern? Is it not also the case that there is no way that this House, or any hon. Member in it, should be prevented from putting a question of fact to the House and talking about facts? Will you confirm that the facts that I put forward-that an assurance was given that tens of millions of pounds would be paid by Lord Ashcroft, and that it then came out that tens of millions of pounds was not paid-were matters of fact?

Mr. Speaker: Order. What I would say to the Leader of the House is that Members from the most senior in the Government to the most recently arrived Back Bencher are perfectly free to air their views and concerns about public issues, subject to two important caveats. First, they must do so within the rules of the House. Secondly, and relatedly, they must do so when the issue in question is a matter of Government responsibility. I said what I said last week, and I am not going to be drawn or inveigled by any Member into criticising a Member who spoke last week. I have not done that and I am not going to do that. I sense that some Members are trying to get me to take sides against particular answers that have been given, but I am not going to do that. I will judge matters on a case-by-case basis. I have no objection either to what the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness has said, or to what the Leader of the House has just said.
	I think that there will be a general sense in the House, and certainly beyond, that we really ought to move on to other matters, and specifically to a very important matter-as is being chuntered from a sedentary position by the person whose interest it is. Mr. William Cash will present his Bill.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Representation of the People (Undue Influence) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr. William Cash, supported by Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. Andrew Turner, Mr. Charles Walker, Sir Nicholas Winterton, Ann Winterton, Mr. Peter Bone, Mr. Brian Binley, Philip Davies and Mark Pritchard, presented a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 to extend the concept of undue influence; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April, and to be printed (Bill 85).

Remembrance Sunday (Closure of Shops)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Patrick Cormack: At last, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the extension of Christmas Day restrictions on the opening of retail premises to Remembrance Sunday; and for connected purposes.
	After what I can describe only as a very fractious hour, I hope that the modest proposal that I shall make to the House will unite us. Every week, in Prime Minister's questions, we all listen with sadness to the list of names that the Prime Minister reads out of those who have given their lives for their country in Afghanistan. What has happened in the past few years has given added significance to the annual commemoration of those who have laid down their lives for their country over the past century.
	Remembrance Sunday looms large in the calendar and has real meaning for people throughout the United Kingdom, and it seems to me right that the House should recognise that. That there is a public feeling of wanting to recognise it is made manifest every time that sad procession drives through Wootton Bassett and people come and respectfully stand. I am bound to say, in parenthesis, that that is rather exploited by the media, but that is another story. That there is true feeling, true sadness and a wish to show how much we appreciate those who have made the supreme sacrifice is all too evident.
	What I am seeking to do with this Bill is to put Remembrance Sunday on the same footing as Easter Sunday and Christmas day. Christmas day was given exemption in the Sunday Trading Act 1994, and a special status in the Bill introduced in 2004 by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). On whatever day of the week it falls, the large shops are closed.
	I believe that this a very modest but very sensible proposal. It is extremely difficult for members of the British Legion in some towns and cities to organise their remembrance parades because of the clutter, hustle and bustle of the high street on Sunday. Many people who would wish to pay their respects by standing silently at the local cenotaph are local shop workers. This Bill has the very strong support of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and I am delighted to be able to introduce it.
	The Bill would not affect farm shops, pharmacies, petrol filling stations, shops at airports or railway stations, or shops at exhibitions that are specially staged on a Sunday. Rather, it would mean that large shops-those of 280 square meters, or 3,000 square feet, and above-would not be able to open on Remembrance Sunday. It would also mean that the loading restrictions in force for Easter day and Christmas day would apply.
	When we first debated Sunday trading, I was one of those who strongly opposed the removal of all restrictions. I said in a speech then that, if we abolished all the restrictions, we would end up with a high street Sunday that was a replica of Saturday. Whatever view colleagues take of Sunday trading, no one can deny that that is what has happened. In all our major towns and cities, the hustle and bustle and activity on a Sunday mirror that of the day before, the Saturday. Surely it is not too much to ask that only a second Sunday of the year-and, on those rare occasions when Christmas day falls on a Sunday, a third-should be set aside.
	Christmas day is a great day of family celebration. Easter day is too and, like Christmas, it is also a great religious festival. However, there are very few families in the land who have not been touched in one way or another by the conflicts of the last century.
	My mother died in 2000, at the age of 90. When I went through her papers, I was amazed to discover that she had lost no fewer than seven cousins in the great war. All of us have similar stories in our families. Today, young men and women are serving on the front line in Afghanistan, and a number of them will never come back.
	Those of us who have been privileged to welcome our returning troops as they marched into New Palace Yard-with your permission, Mr. Speaker-have been deeply moved by the spirit, dedication, determination, bravery and quiet courage of those young people. We have also been moved by their eagerness to get back.
	We have just gone though the war in Iraq, and we are still at war in Afghanistan. I really feel that we should set aside Remembrance Sunday, so that the remembrance ceremonies can be conducted with proper and due decorum, and so that the ringing of the cash till does not drown out the observance of the silence.
	I hope that the Government will accept this Bill, and that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches and in the other parties will support it. I have based it on the one introduced by the hon. Member for North Durham a few years ago, and if the House gives me leave I will publish it later today. I shall name a day for Second reading that will make it possible for the Bill to be enacted in time for Remembrance Sunday this year.
	We are preparing to enter an election in which we will debate with each other- perfectly honourably and honestly-on a range of issues about which we disagree. However, I believe that it is right and proper for us to come together over this measure, which I think will have widespread support throughout the country.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Sir Patrick Cormack, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Christopher Chope, Rosie Cooper, Mr. Nigel Dodds, Christopher Fraser, Kate Hoey, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Dr. Richard Taylor, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Sir Nicholas Winterton and Dr. Tony Wright present the Bill.
	Sir Patrick Cormack accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March and to be printed (Bill 84).

Estimates Day
	 — 
	[2(nd) Allotted Day]

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 2009-10
	 — 
	DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Alcohol

[ Relevant Document: The First Report from the Health Committee, on Alcohol, HC 151 .]
	 Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2010, for expenditure by the Department of Health-
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £969,893,000, be authorised for use as set out in HC 257,
	(2) a further sum, not exceeding £606,272,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs as so set out, and
	(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.-( Helen Jones.)

Kevin Barron: May I begin, Mr. Speaker, by saying how much I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate? You will be aware that we published a report on alcohol in January. We are about to get a response from the Government, although sadly not in time for this debate.
	Most hon. Members will know that the problem of alcohol goes way beyond the Department of Health and into many other areas of Government. We expect the Government's response later this month but, given the election that is well on its way, it would have been wrong not to take this opportunity to debate the issue as it affects this country, in the light of the Health Committee's report.
	I do not want to go into too much detail today, but anyone who has read the report will know how wide the Committee went with the evidence that it took and the recommendations that it made. I have been concerned for many years that the House has looked at alcohol from the point of view of antisocial behaviour. That is quite right, as that aspect is very important: communities and neighbourhoods are being disturbed by people who are binge drinking and having too much to drink, and that has a major knock-on effect, in families, communities and town centres.
	It was right and proper for the Government to take action to prevent that, but I and other members of the Committee have been worried about the consequences of excessive alcohol over time. In the report, we looked at what is happening now, at the beginning of the 21st century, but we also went back to Hogarth's London and all the gin and so on that was drunk then. We took a look at the history of alcohol in this country.
	There is no doubt that English drinking habits have been transformed over the last 60 years. In 1947, the nation consumed approximately 3.5 litres of pure alcohol per head; the current figure is 9.5 litres. General Household Survey data from 2006 show that 31 per cent. of men are drinking hazardously, consuming more than 21 units per week, and that 9 per cent. are drinking harmfully, at more than 50 units per week. The figures also showed that 21 per cent. of women are drinking hazardously and 6 per cent. harmfully, although the House will be aware that the unit size recommended for women is lower than that for men.
	Although the consumption of alcohol has increased, taxation on spirits has declined in real terms, and even more so as a fraction of average earnings. I want to put it on the record this afternoon-it is stated in the report-that rising alcohol consumption and its consequences have become an increasing source of concern in recent years. The consequences include those not only of binge drinking, which causes many serious accidents, disorder, violence and crime, but of long-term heavy drinking, which causes more harm to health.
	The president of the Royal College of Physicians gave evidence to the Committee and told us that alcohol was probably a significant factor in 30,000 to 40,000 deaths a year. The World Health Organisation has put alcohol as the third most frequent cause of death after hypertension and tobacco. UK deaths from liver cirrhosis increased more than fivefold between 1970 and 2006. By contrast, in France, Italy and Spain, the number of deaths shrank between twofold and fourfold. This country's number of deaths from cirrhosis is now greater than that in all those countries.
	The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), who is a member of the Health Committee, was a hospital physician for many years, and we once used a phrase in exchanges to the effect that 30 years ago cirrhosis of the liver was something that old men died of. We were talking about people probably between the ages of 60 and 70. Now we see in the media that young women and men in their 20s are dying of that disease, which is related to an accumulation of alcohol over time, or the quantities in their case. We as a country should not ignore what is happening to the health of those individuals. That disease-there are other similar diseases-is something that should concern us. It is not an old man's disease anymore.
	In 2003, the Prime Minister's strategy unit estimated the total cost of alcohol to society at some £20 billion. Another study in 2007 put the figure at £55 billion. Faced by a mounting problem, the response of successive Governments has ranged from the non-existent to the ineffectual. In 2004, an alcohol strategy was published, following an excellent study of the cost of alcohol by the strategy unit, but I have to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that the strategy failed to take account of the evidence that had been gathered and was not implemented. The evidence showed that a rise in the price of alcohol was the most effective way to reduce consumption, just as its increasing affordability since the 1960s has been the major cause of the rise in consumption.

Pete Wishart: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee on producing a consensual, constructive report, and I hope that they are successful in getting the recommendations implemented. Will he compare and contrast the consensual way that he and his colleagues approach the issue with what has happened in Scotland, where Liberal and Labour Members have acted as an oppositionist bloc to stop the very recommendations that he suggests? We could implement those recommendations in Scotland with the assistance of Liberal and Labour Members in Scotland. Will he give them advice? Will he help them and us to implement those recommendations?

Kevin Barron: The Health Committee is designated to consider England and Wales, not the devolved Assemblies. What the hon. Gentleman mentions is a matter for the Scottish Parliament, but I hear what he says. Whether other people hear what he says is a matter for them.
	Let me go straight on to say that we note that minimum pricing is supported by many prominent health experts, economists and the Association of Chief Police Officers, which gave evidence to the Committee. Indeed, the chief medical officer in his latest annual report supports the introduction of minimum pricing. I will go a bit further into that detail in a few minutes.

Andrew Murrison: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the fact that alcohol is relatively cheap in France, yet the incidence of alcohol-related disease is declining there, as he said, whereas alcohol is relatively expensive in this country and we have a bigger problem?

Kevin Barron: In part, the answer is cultural and I will come on to that, as we need to consider it. However, we went to France to take some evidence last September, and we found that, instead of what was considered to be steady consumption, binge drinking by young people is increasing there. France may face the problems that we are experiencing in this country if it does not take appropriate action. I am not saying that we know what action should be taken at every level, but if France follows our pattern of binge drinking among young people-it looks as though things are moving that way-it will have to take more action. Certainly, we must take more action to try to overcome the problem.

Kelvin Hopkins: On the price of alcohol, 40 or 50 years ago the death rate from alcohol in France was quite appalling. It was monstrous. Perhaps the French have learned from their terrible history that alcohol causes terrible health problems and death, and perhaps we have yet to learn that lesson properly.

Kevin Barron: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I hope that the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) appreciates it. Anyway, minimum pricing needs to be looked at further.
	A myth is widely propagated by parts of the drinks industry and politicians that a rise in prices would unfairly affect the majority of moderate drinkers. Precisely because they are moderate drinkers, a minimum price of, for example, 40p per unit of alcohol would have little effect. It would effectively mean that a woman who drinks the recommended maximum of 15 units a week could buy her weekly total of alcohol for £6. Of course, probably not everyone drinks industrial white cider only.

Greg Mulholland: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for sharing the Committee's interesting report with us. Will he clarify, however, that the £6 figure relates to the off-trade and that no one could buy those units at that price in the on-trade? That is, of course, one of the big problems that we face, as the Committee acknowledges.

Kevin Barron: That is in the report, and I will deal with it later in my speech if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
	Opponents also claim that heavy drinkers are insensitive to price changes, but their consumption as a group will be most affected by price rises, as they drink so much of the alcohol purchased in this country. Minimum pricing would most affect those who drink cheap alcohol-in particular, young binge drinkers and heavy low-income drinkers, who suffer most from liver disease. It is estimated that a minimum price of 50p per unit of alcohol would save about 3,000 lives a year, and that a minimum price of 40p per unit of alcohol would save 1,100 lives a year.
	Of course, minimum pricing would have other benefits. Unlike rises in duty, minimum pricing would benefit traditional pubs-the on-trade, as the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) suggested-so, unsurprisingly, it is supported by the Campaign for Real Ale, which also gave evidence to the Committee. We are all concerned about the closures of public houses in this country. They are closing for many reasons, not necessarily just the price of alcohol, but it is true to say that minimum pricing would be more likely to support local, traditional pubs than to do anything adverse to them.

Graham Stringer: I am following my right hon. Friend's analysis closely. I am not sure whether it leads me to the same conclusion that we should interfere in the alcohol pricing mechanism across the board, but does he agree that the duty on white cider, which is often what those people who are most affected by alcohol are drinking, should be increased to the same as that on beer and that it is wrong that the duty on spirits has increased by only 20 per cent. over the past 13 years, compared with 50 per cent. for beer?

Kevin Barron: I was about to move on to precisely that issue. I understand that some industrial white cider, which is the most appropriate way to describe it, can be bought for 20p a unit in supermarkets. It is the stuff that we see young children and other people consuming on park benches. That has to stop, but it is not stopping. Indeed, it is being promoted in this country as we speak, and we have asked the Government to consider that in detail. I am talking about pricing, but other hon. Members may want to talk about the wider issues raised by our report.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way yet again. On the problem of supermarkets versus pubs, thousands of young people get tanked up on cheap booze from supermarkets before they go the pub. Does that not undermine the pub and encourage irresponsible drinking, too?

Kevin Barron: Yes. From the evidence that we took, I think it is called front-loading. Many years ago, when I was working in industry and went out to the club on Saturday nights, I often saw people bending down to bring out of their handbag little bottles of spirits to top up their drinks. Front-loading has previously occurred in one or two areas, but I suspect that the availability of alcohol in cost terms now means that people do not have to do that with spirits any more.
	Minimum pricing would also encourage a switch to weaker wines and beers-the Committee emphasised that point. With a minimum price of 40 per cent. per unit, a 10 per cent. alcohol by volume wine would cost a minimum of £2.80, and a 13 per cent. ABV wine about £3.60. Some people pay £6, £8 or £10 for bottle containing six or eight units of alcohol. No one who buys wine at that level will be hurt in the pocket. A good exercise for Members to do the next time they go to the supermarket is to go along the shelves turning around the wine bottles to see how many units of alcohol they contain, which will give them a practical idea of the effect of what we propose. In my view, average drinkers, as we call them, would not be harmed by what we propose.
	Of course, without an increase in duty, minimum pricing would lead to an increase in the profits of supermarkets and the drinks industry. Anyone who looks at our report will see what we said about how supermarkets in particular promote alcohol and about the mechanisms they use to do so-discounting and so on. I do not intend to discuss that this afternoon, but it is an important area for us to look at. To increase profits in that way would not be helpful.
	We believe that alcohol duty should continue to rise year on year, but unlike in recent years, duty increases should predominantly be on stronger alcohol drinks, notably spirits. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) mentioned the situation in Scotland. The Committee learned that nowadays the spirit of choice in Scotland is the £5 bottle of vodka-we can compare that with what spirits cost 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Now, they are affordable to young people, and they are drinking them-we provide evidence of that in our report. It is deeply worrying.
	According to Treasury calculations-hon. Members can intervene on me to show how hopeless my understanding is-the duty on a bottle of spirits was 60 per cent. of male average manual weekly earnings in 1947; in 1973, when value added tax was imposed in addition to duty, duty was 16 per cent. of earnings; by 1983, it was 11 per cent.; and by 2002, it had fallen to 5 per cent. According to calculations undertaken by the Treasury at the Committee's request, for our report, if the duty on a bottle of spirits had increased since the early 1980s at the same rate as earnings, it would now be £62. If the rate had increased in line with the retail prices index and not with average male earnings, the duty on a bottle of spirits would now be £38.60. The Committee examined questions of licensing-who can sell alcohol-and accessibility in terms of where it can be obtained, but the accessibility of alcohol in terms of income has seen an extraordinary turnaround, especially that of the heavier stuff.

William Cash: Has the right hon. Gentleman decided not to consider the question of advertising because this is an estimates debate and he does not want to go down that road? Does he have any concerns about the extent to which, through advertising, the excessive drinking of alcohol is glorified?

Kevin Barron: There is great detail on that in our report. The Committee did not talk only to the drinks industry but took evidence from people who act as their agents in promoting alcohol. Many years ago, when I was looking at the promotion of tobacco, the methods used in relation to various age groups, voluntary codes and so on, I probably had a firmer view on how tobacco was promoted and was strongly opposed to it. I am pleased that this House has legislated in the House to get rid of it. The Committee did not make firm recommendations on alcohol advertising, but there are points on how alcohol is promoted and young people's perceptions. There are voluntary codes-people under 25 should not be used in advertising and so on. The subject is in our report, and perhaps one or two of my fellow members of the Committee will say something about it. I decided to stick with pricing in my speech, but the hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. We spend public money on trying to educate people about being more responsible; does alcohol promotion act against our work on health education? I will leave that question for another day, but it should be asked, none the less.
	I have said what the duty on spirits would have been had we not changed the mechanisms and dropped the links altogether in recent years. Neither I nor the Committee recommend an immediate leap to those levels of duty on spirits, but we should certainly make a start. Availability of alcohol, not just in terms of where it can be bought but in terms of cost, is, we believe, the reason for the increase in drinking in this country and in ill health caused by alcohol. We think that a start should be made. We recommend that duties on spirits be returned in stages to the same percentage of average earnings as in the past. The duty on industrial white cider should also be increased-there is no question about that. Industrial white cider is easily obtainable and cheaper per unit than other forms of alcohol, and is drunk by many binge drinkers, old and young.
	Beer under 2.8 per cent. ABV can be taxed at a different rate. We recommend the duty on that category of beer be reduced. Now, only one beer-Welton's Pride 'n' Joy, which is praised by CAMRA-is in that category. The Treasury should consider how to set duties on drinks, not to encourage people to stop drinking alcohol-no one wants to make people stop-but to increase the availability of lower alcohol content drinks. That will help people to look after their health a little better, which I would like to be able to do. That is what the Committee arrived at, with Treasury decisions running alongside the wider issues.
	Any prices increase must be part of a wider policy aimed at changing our attitude to alcohol. It has been said that France's drinking culture is different from ours-children there aged five or six will have a glass of wine with meals and so on-but as I said, there is evidence of increasing binge drinking by young people. The French must be very aware of that.

Derek Twigg: I apologise for not being here at the start of my right hon. Friend's interesting speech. From talking to parents and police officers, I have learned that in parts of our community there seems to be a culture of parents giving their children drink to take out on to the street-in fact, some give their children drink, then drop them off at certain known trouble spots, on the basis that they know where they are and what they are drinking. Is that not a terrible state of affairs? It makes the police's job much more difficult. Do we not have to get a much stronger message to that section of the community that that is not the right thing to do, and to provide better education for them?

Kevin Barron: I agree entirely. Any parents in this day and age who are giving their children cans or bottles of alcohol, then dropping them off in a place where there is a culture of drinking, are not doing their children any favours. It could well be argued that what they are doing is potentially shortening the lives of their own children. That is not a responsible position for any parent to take. It was not the position that I took as a parent, although I cannot tell my children what to do now: they are all grown up and two have children themselves. Parents who do what my hon. Friend describes are doing no one, especially not their children, any favours, but it is happening. I do not have the statistics in front of me, but it is a well known fact that under-age drinkers get much of their alcohol not just from somebody aged 18 buying it from the local shop and then handing it on to them, but via their family. Parents should be well aware of that.
	We said in the report that the policy must be aimed at the millions who are damaging their health by harmful drinking, but it is time to recognise that problem drinkers reflect society's attitude to alcohol. There is a good deal of evidence to show that the number of heavy drinkers in a society is directly related to average consumption. Living in a culture that encourages drinking leads more people to drink to excess. Changing the culture will require a raft of policies. This afternoon I am speaking about one of them-pricing-but there are many other aspects that need to be addressed.
	One of the most interesting statistics reported to the Committee was that if people who drink in this country-there are quite a lot of us-drank no more than the number of units per week recommended for women and for men, alcohol consumption would be reduced by about 40 per cent. The alcohol industry was not happy to engage in the debate about that, but if those statistics are true, as we believe they are, they indicate the extent to which people in the UK drink beyond the guidelines recommended to protect their health.
	Let me deal with the Government response to the report. As I said earlier, they are not in a position to respond in the usual form, but my hon. Friend the Minister put out a press release. I hope she was not planning to read it out this afternoon, as I shall quote extensively from it. She stated in response to our report:
	"Alcohol is an increasing challenge to people's health. We"-
	that is, the Government-
	"are working hard to reverse the trend and are constantly seeking better ways to tackle it."
	She continued:
	"Since 2004 this Government has adopted a strategic approach to tackle alcohol harms, from under-age drinking and binge drinking through to longer-term harmful drinking."
	That is true. It is also true that the tide is going against us. The policy is not working and there is no plan to make it work.
	The Minister went on to say that
	"current levels of alcohol-related hospital admissions, crime, and deaths are unacceptable."
	That is a very positive response to the publication of our report. The press release continued:
	"Much more can, and will, be done to turn this around, but the change won't happen overnight".
	Everybody accepts that. None the less, I was pleased that my hon. Friend went on to say:
	"New and strengthened campaigns from this month will raise public awareness further on the link between drinking too much and poor health, and on the harm that alcohol can do to children."
	She pointed out that the Government
	"have already taken new powers to tackle the worst irresponsible promotions such as 'drink as much as you like for £5'."
	I understand that the Home Office is taking action against that.
	First-year students at university-I have one in my family-are offered the chance to go into a nightclub and drink as much alcohol as they like for the price of the £10 admission fee. It is extraordinary that alcohol is so easy to access. When I was young, I lived in a working-class culture where young men went out drinking beer, even before they were 18. We would do that one or two nights a week. Although I was working, I could not afford to go out more than that.
	The idea that young people now can go out and, for £10, drink as much alcohol as they want-spirits or beer, as I understand it-is frightening. Young people do not know everything, although they think they do from the age of about 16 onwards. The damage that such promotions may be doing to them, which may not be found out for years, is frightening. I am pleased to say that since our report, the Government are taking action, and I know that they were working on the matter before.

Sandra Gidley: The Committee took evidence showing that in Southampton Tuesday is the night for students to go out drinking because that is the night they can drink as much as they like for £10. Will the right hon. Gentleman also condemn the drinking clubs such as Carnage, which target new students and organise pub crawls of all the pubs in town for a fee? That causes great distress to many local residents.

Kevin Barron: Indeed. I understand that some of those promotions are coming to an end, and quite right too, in my view. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us more when she responds to the debate. We as a society must get back to a more balanced approach to alcohol. Accessibility and cost are two aspects that must be tackled.
	The Government also said in response to the Committee's report:
	"We will continue to look at how we can tackle the problems caused by cheap alcohol. We will consider this within a framework which respects the rights of responsible consumers whilst making a real difference to the types of excessive drinking that damage individuals and families and are a cost to our society."
	I agree entirely. The aim is not to punish the average drinker in any way-I rarely see average drinkers sitting round with bottles of white cider. The aim is to attack binge drinking, and minimum pricing is one method. The study that was done in Sheffield was carried out in the cultures that I have lived in all my life, certainly since the age of 8 in south Yorkshire. It concluded that minimum pricing would work in that situation to cut binge drinking.
	I know that my hon. Friend will not be able to give us a definite answer about pricing structure, especially at this time in the political diary. We have a general election in a few weeks, and whoever comes into government must tackle the long-term damage to health being done by alcohol. The objective is not to stop people drinking, but to get them to use alcohol in a sensible and proper manner, as my generation and many before us were able to do.

Greg Mulholland: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). I congratulate the Committee on an interesting and well put together report. Clearly, the key area that the Committee examined was pricing, and that is certainly one of the elements that should be tackled, as the right hon. Gentleman stressed.
	We should start by acknowledging that there is a problem with people abusing alcohol. The focus should be on problem drinking. There are various definitions, some of which are helpful. We can have a debate about how many units people should drink per week or over a year, but by problem drinking, I mean drinking that leads to inappropriate, irresponsible behaviour, antisocial behaviour and crime, or drinking that damages health. The Select Committee report focuses, of course, on damage to health and what action the Government-any Government-can take to try to ameliorate that.
	We should also acknowledge that the problem is not alcohol. I say to the Chair and the members of the Select Committee-I suspect they would agree with me, although this is may not be sufficiently clearly stated in the report-that the problem is not even cheap alcohol. The problem is people abusing alcohol and drinking in an inappropriate way that leads to the kind of problems that we have heard about. That is cultural, and it is all very well saying that drinking patterns have changed, and all very well quoting the figures for how many people are drinking more, but if we look at those patterns, we find that the situation is not as simple as the figures suggest. As my colleague and chair of the all-party beer group, the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), knows, beer consumption is declining, so the issue is that of our culture shifting, not just that all Britons are drinking more. A group of people are drinking more than they should, and we must focus on them.
	I agree fundamentally with the main conclusion of the Committee's report, which is that we should introduce a minimum price for alcohol.

Pete Wishart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Greg Mulholland: Of course, and I was expecting to do so.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman is right to expect me to intervene at this point. If he agrees with minimum pricing, will he please get on the phone to his Liberal colleagues up in Scotland and tell them to support the Scottish Government, who are trying to get that very measure through in the teeth of Liberal opposition? It is not just opposition from individual Members of the Scottish Parliament, but whipped Liberal opposition, so will he get on the phone and convince them that they are wrong and we are right? Let us make sure that we have minimum pricing in Scotland.

Greg Mulholland: What a very odd request from a member of the Scottish National party-to insist that I, a proud Englishman, get on the phone to tell my Scottish colleagues what to do. I shall treat that very odd logic with the contempt that it deserves. My Scottish colleagues in the Scottish Parliament deal with their own affairs and the hon. Gentleman would certainly agree with that. Under the circumstances, he would be appalled if I did otherwise.
	The Liberal Democrat parliamentary party very much supports a minimum price for alcohol. The Committee Chairman has outlined some of these issues, but I shall give a stark example using figures that date back to May 2008. At that time, the average cost of a draught pint of lager in a pub was £2.75, which equates to £4.95 a litre. At the same time, however, supermarkets were selling lager with a strength of more than 4 per cent. for as little as £1.20 per litre, and weaker lager for as little as 52p per litre. Tesco was selling a 70cl bottle of "Value" vodka for £6.54. Of that price, £5.98 is taken in duty, and a further £1.14 is taken in VAT, totalling £7.12-more than the retail price. It is a scandal that alcohol is sold in an uncontrolled environment. It is easy for people to put such products in with their weekly shop and, potentially, for minors and so on to access it. That is a real problem, and I absolutely agree that minimum pricing is important.
	However, politicians should not decide that minimum price. The Sheffield study was interesting but certainly not conclusive, and we need an independent body, made up of economists and industry and health specialists, to recommend not only a minimum price but how it should work, so that we tackle problem drinking without having any perverse impacts. The right hon. Gentleman talked about not having a detrimental impact on moderate drinkers, who would have to pay a little more for their bottle of wine or their pints of beer, and that may be true, but we have to consider other impacts.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am slightly concerned about the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that politicians should not decide those matters. We certainly receive recommendations, and the chief medical officer recommended a price of 50p per unit, which would be a good start, but in the end this House will have to decide the price and ensure that it is enforced.

Greg Mulholland: That is precisely why neither politicians nor the chief medical officer should say that they know the answer to the problem, or recommend a level. We have heard about some of the effects of 50p per unit, but not about its effects on the consumption of lower strength drinks or on pubs. There could be a perverse incentive, and we need to investigate the matter holistically.

Kevin Barron: I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the Committee about introducing a minimum price per unit. He suggests what type of people should advise the Government, and he seems to be suggesting that politicians should not take a position on price. Does he not think, however, that we have to look beyond the advice that the Government take from different institutions? We have an increase in binge drinking and in alcohol-related deaths, and we have to look at new ways of solving that problem.

Greg Mulholland: We do, indeed, but I am not quite sure what point the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make. My point simply is that we should not say, "50 per cent. or 40 per cent. sounds right." We need to look at the holistic impact of the measure. The principle is absolutely right, but we have not reached the stage where we know what the price should be, and it is important that we do not simply pick a figure out of the air.

Howard Stoate: Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that Parliament decides-in fact, the Chancellor decides-on alcohol duty, so it is really not much of a leap to say that the House should take a strong view on minimum pricing. Does he agree that minimum pricing cannot possibly affect the pub or restaurant trade? No pubs in the country will sell alcohol for 50p per unit other than at those very strange times of binge drinking. He would be very lucky to find in his constituency a pub that would sell him beer at 50p a unit, so the measure would affect not the pub or restaurant trade but those people who consume vast quantities of very cheap alcohol that they can obtain from wholesalers or some supermarkets.

Greg Mulholland: Once again, the hon. Gentleman proves my point precisely. He is quite right about the effect on the pub, but unfortunately a 50p minimum price for alcohol would make it impossible for many of our smaller breweries to survive, and that would therefore damage the brewing trade. We have to look at all those issues together. That is the sensible way to do it, rather than plucking a figure out of the air.

Kelvin Hopkins: We have already heard that beer consumption is falling, so breweries are suffering because people are drinking cheaper, stronger alcohol that is not beer. If the price of those other drinks were raised, surely that would help the breweries and pubs.

Greg Mulholland: Again, that proves my argument. Hon. Members think that through minimum pricing they have the solution to binge drinking, and I agree with the measure, but let me make it absolutely clear that there is no silver bullet. It is rather naive to suggest otherwise. If there were a silver bullet, we would all accept it and pursue it. We would all have to deal with impacts of a minimum price, however, and they have not yet been properly assessed.
	On the Committee's secondary conclusion that we should therefore increase duty even more, I absolutely agree that we should look at duty levels. Industrial cider has been mentioned, and there is a clear discrepancy between that and beer; and the rather favourable treatment that spirits have received over the past few years has also rightly been mentioned. Beer duty, which has been increased and used as just a way of making money, has no relevance whatever to the debate about how to deal with problem drinking, but the Liberal Democrats reject increasing prices as a whole.
	It is interesting to look at all the statistics, but some commentators lack common sense and an understanding of psychology. The reality is simple. Let us imagine that someone is going out to binge drink 10 alcoholic drinks, which is far more than they should. We could slap on an extra duty that increased the price by 10p per drink, and that would be a large increase, but is anyone seriously suggesting that it would stop someone drinking that amount? All we are talking about is it costing an extra £1-the equivalent of a bag of chips-to drink exactly the same amount. Is that really going to have the effect on behaviour some people suggest it would? I am afraid that it will not. It is just not realistic, and I repeat that there is no silver bullet. Pricing must be looked at, but it is not the silver-bullet solution that some people suggest.

Sandra Gidley: I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but a lot of the evidence that the Committee took showed that in such a situation people, particularly young people, do not buy alcohol at the higher price. Instead, they buy cheap alcohol from supermarkets, pre-load and then go out and buy one or two expensive drinks. A lot of research has shown that most students go out with about a tenner in their pocket, so price is a factor. It is not the only one, but it is a critical factor in tackling the problem.

Greg Mulholland: I do not think that my hon. Friend is disagreeing with me. Perhaps she does not like my suggesting that her Committee has not solved this problem; it might have thought that it had. I have made it absolutely clear that one of the problems is the price differential between the on trade and the off trade and the irresponsible supermarket selling of alcohol at unreasonably low prices, even below cost prices. Nevertheless, there will still be people who go to bars and clubs and are unaffected by that. Not to recognise that shows a lack of realism and a lack of understanding of human psychology. These things need to be looked at in a more holistic way.
	It is important to focus on moving towards a minimum price-setting that level to stop irresponsible off-trade pricing to ensure that people are not able to access it-but that alone will not deal with the problem entirely. We have to acknowledge the culture. Although the Select Committee's report rightly touched on the issue of pubs being an important place for sociable, controlled drinking, I am afraid that we all, as a nation, have to accept that a cultural change must also be considered. We are concerned not only about the changes that we have seen with regard to people drinking more at home, but about people buying alcohol from the off trade, including supermarkets, and then drinking it in the park or on the street.
	There has been a cultural change in the on trade, too. The sector of the on trade that is particularly suffering is the traditional community pub that has a particular role not only in being somewhere for people in the area to meet but in being a controlled sociable atmosphere where people of all ages will go. It is very regrettable how some sections of the on-trade industry-I use that word advisedly, because we are talking about some very large companies-have deliberately done away with community pubs and moved to vertical drinking spaces. They have deliberately pushed people away from a convivial, sociable culture where they sit down to one in which they are crammed in and there is loud music. It is not about chatting but about drinking and encouraging people to drink more. That change must be acknowledged, and it will not be dealt with by pricing alone.

Kevin Barron: The reason for vertical drinking establishments is to increase profits. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not agree with the Sheffield university report, which looked into the culture of drinking in England and made firm recommendations about how some binge drinking can be stopped. What aspects of that report does he disagree with?

Greg Mulholland: I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman gets that idea from, because I have not said for a moment that I disagree with the Sheffield university report; it is very interesting, and I agree with many of its conclusions. My only comment in that regard has been that we are not at the stage of saying that we should necessarily adopt a minimum price of 40p per unit. It is an excellent report, which firmly focuses on that issue, as well as on price differentials in the off trade. I would have welcomed the Select Committee's going into that a little more, but of course it was dealing with the issue specifically from a health perspective.
	A cross-departmental approach is needed. There is a huge criminal justice side to this issue, which has to involve tackling problems with disorder as well as the health problems that have been recognised. I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman is keen to point out that cultural issues are important and that the pub, as a sociable, controlled drinking environment, is part of the solution.

Graham Stringer: The hon. Gentleman is talking about criminal justice solutions. During the passage of the Licensing Act 2003, I was amazed, as a member of the Public Bill Committee that considered it, that there were so few prosecutions of landlords selling alcohol to intoxicated people. That has been against the law for a long time. Enforcing that law-I see no evidence that the situation is improving-would deal with some of the disorder that we see on our high streets. Does he recognise and agree with that?

Greg Mulholland: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. As he says, there are adequate powers to deal with some of the abuses of selling alcohol and they are not currently used. That also applies to selling alcohol to minors. The existing system is there, and we do not need more laws and regulations: we just need to use the ones that we have. I agree with him from that perspective.
	There is still an insufficient focus on education about alcohol. If we are to have a culture in which people are brought up to think that alcohol is to be respected, we will need more education, including in schools. Some very positive campaigns have been run over the past 18 months, and that has been a good use of Department of Health money to get the message across about binge drinking. However, there is a problem in simply talking about alcohol as a drug and about the dangers of alcohol. Other societies and nations have a different attitude towards alcohol. They do not just say, "This is a dangerous thing and you must make sure that you don't abuse it"; they bring up their children to understand and respect it.

Sandra Gidley: I take my hon. Friend's point about education in schools; unfortunately, many young people think that they are invincible and tend to ignore what they are told. Does he support the use of alcohol-related arrest referral schemes, which provide information and counselling about the effects of alcohol to people who have been brought to the attention of the criminal justice system as a result of an alcohol-related disorder? Those schemes are being evaluated, but when they have been tried in the USA, they have been very effective in reducing repeat drink offences.

Greg Mulholland: I thank my hon. Friend; I indeed support that approach. From a health point of view, I also think that people who have been admitted to accident and emergency with alcohol conditions should be put on to an alcohol rehabilitation course. That would do more to challenge problem drinking than some of the measures that have been proposed.
	Schools have a role and a responsibility to provide education about alcohol, as do parents, although it is hard to educate the parents themselves. We have to bring up young people to respect alcohol. How many 16-year-olds understand how beer is brewed or how wine is produced? Why, in this country, do we continue to talk about alcohol merely as a drug? Why do we not do more to point out that alcohol, if respected and drunk responsibly, is something to be enjoyed? There are good alcoholic drinks and bad alcoholic drinks, but why do we never say that? We always bracket them together, as under the current duty regime, which is rather perverse given its treatment of cider.
	We have to accept our culture and who we are, but we often fail to do that in these debates. The Committee was right to point out that the Government's thinking was entirely naive and misplaced in trying to move suddenly to a continental café culture. We do not need a continental café culture, but a culture that respects alcohol more. That involves understanding what alcohol is and how it is produced, and accepting that good alcohol, when enjoyed responsibly, is an important part of our culture and our heritage. I invite you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and any other Members, to come to an event that takes place in my constituency every September-Otley folk festival, when every single pub in the town is thronged with people enjoying locally produced real ale and folk music. It is very much part of our English heritage and culture. Do we see disorder and problems? No, we do not, but I am afraid politicians are too slow to recognise that alcohol is an important and positive part of our culture and heritage, and that if enjoyed responsibly, it is to be celebrated.
	It is rather lazy of politicians sometimes to talk about the "the drinks industry", because that includes every single alcohol producer, from the huge business to the small microbrewery brewing perhaps for only one pub, and all the pubs, bars and clubs. That group does not form an industry, and the idea that everyone in it is somehow irresponsible is a lazy assertion. We need to focus on the companies that do not fulfil their responsibilities and that have clear profit motive for wanting people to drink irresponsibly. That applies to some companies but not to others, and certainly not to many pubs and small breweries.
	The report is a useful step forward, and I hope it will make the Government seriously consider introducing a minimum price. After the election, I should certainly like whoever is in Government to take that forward as part of the solution to problem drinking in this country. However, we must remember that there is no silver bullet, and we have to accept that there needs to be cultural change. To some extent we have to go back to the years that the right hon. Member for Rother Valley talked about, when alcohol consumption was lower, but we also have to think about our approach to alcohol and the selling and marketing of it in those days. There are many lessons to learn. We do not need a new culture; we need a return to a responsible, sociable pub-related culture; and we need to focus on the individuals, retailers and companies that continue to abuse their position and that make it very difficult for responsible drinkers to enjoy alcohol by fuelling the problem drinking that damages our neighbourhoods and towns and people's health.

Howard Stoate: It is very important that we are having this debate, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who chaired the Health Committee admirably and enabled it to make an in-depth study of the whole issue of alcohol. We obtained some extremely valuable papers in evidence, which the Committee and our researchers found useful in producing what I believe is a helpful report.
	It is important that we distinguish between ordinary drinking, which nearly all of us do, and the problem drinking of a minority, although a significant minority, of people in this country. Alcohol has always played an important role in our society. It has lubricated the wheels of politics and business for as long as anyone can remember and helped million of Britons to cement friendships and relationships. Even the British Medical Association, which is one of the most vehement critics of our drinking culture, recognises that. In written evidence for our inquiry, it wrote:
	"Alcohol in moderation has some very positive social and personal effects. It is not true that the only safe route for most people is total abstinence."
	That is very well put.
	Although we have always spent a long time as a nation thinking, speaking and writing about alcohol-I do not think any country has more expressions for being drunk than we do-we now fetishise alcohol in a way that was not apparent 50 or even 25 years ago. The alcohol industry now spends between £600 million and £800 million a year on drinks marketing and advertising. It has been phenomenally successful in implanting in Britain's collective consciousness the idea that drinking alcohol is synonymous with social, sexual, physical and material success. It has succeeded brilliantly in tapping into our deepest and most heartfelt aspirations and desires, and suggesting that alcohol can help us meet them, even if just for a brief, escapist moment on a Friday or Saturday night. As a result of those efforts, alcohol is now seen by millions of young people as an essential lifestyle prop that can help confer instant glamour and open the door to success and popularity.
	Nor, thanks to the drinks industry, is alcohol consumption limited to a few specific, well-defined periods in the week any more. As the British Society of Gastroenterology and British Association for the Study of the Liver pointed out in their written evidence, we have contrived in recent years to superimpose the southern European culture of regular heavy drinking to accompany food on our long-standing Anglo-Saxon culture of feast and binge drinking. We are now, as they put it,
	"reaping the consequences in terms of liver deaths".
	In fact, there has been a gradual merging of drinking cultures across Europe. Only a few years ago French experts were confidently predicting that a binge drinking culture was unlikely to take root there, as alcohol was culturally integrated. They said that the French, having been introduced to alcohol at an early age, drank in a controlled fashion, if perhaps a little too regularly, and that getting visibly and audibly incapacitated was seen as neither cool nor particularly impressive. The French have always taken that attitude.
	However, although the overall level of alcohol consumption in France is declining, as we have heard today, "le binge drinking" among young people has emerged as a real problem and a raft of legislation has been proposed to tackle it. In fact, the French have far more draconian advertising laws than we do. It is extremely difficult now for the French to advertise alcohol in any social context at all. They can merely present the brand, and that is all they can do. They cannot associate it with any particular culture or with glamour.
	The French phenomenon has been described as part of a "globalisation of behaviour" evident in all 27 EU member states, with teenagers increasingly seeking instant intoxication as an end in itself. However, attitudes can change in the other direction as well. The best example that I can think of is in Germany, where beer consumption has declined dramatically in the past decade. It was the capital of Europe for beer drinking, but it has now lost its crown to the Czech Republic. Health considerations have certainly played a part in that decline, but the changing image of beer has been the most important thing. Beer drinking is now seen by many young people in Germany as a staid old man's pursuit and distinctly uncool. Consequently, the Germans have shifted their drinking patterns far more towards alcohol such as spirits.
	That shows that although we can never change young people's desire to drink and to experiment with alcohol, the image of alcohol is very important in shaping what, when, where and-crucially-how much they drink. That is why we need to exert far greater control over how alcohol is marketed and advertised in this country. It is not an altruistic desire to support the sports industry or music scene that has led Carling, for example, to sponsor the Football League cup, Rangers and Celtic football clubs and, until recently, the Reading festival and various leading music venues across London. It is motivated instead by the company's self-confessed desire to
	"become the most respected youth brand".
	In sponsoring music events, for instance, Carling states that it wishes to "piggyback" on the success of the band-
	"the heroes at the venue"-
	and use them as a means of "engaging customers' emotions". As Professor Gerard Hastings, who advised our Committee, wrote:
	"Sponsorship is a way of raising brand awareness, creating positive brand attitudes and building emotional connections with consumers. Its power comes not from direct advertising messages but through associating the brand with an already engaging event or celebrity, and gaining power and credibility in the process."
	That is a pertinent point.
	A focus on football and live music is designed to grab the attention of young male teenagers and increase the likelihood of their making Carling one of their first alcohol purchases. In choosing voluntarily to remove its logo from child-size replica Rangers and Celtic shirts two years ago, Carling more or less admitted that the association between the clubs and the brand had a direct and positive influence upon young people's attitudes towards the Carling brand. Mark Hunter, the chief executive of Coors, Carling's parent company, said at the time:
	"Coors and the Old Firm clubs have a long track-record in working together to champion responsible drinking. This means ensuring that sponsorship is not improperly targeted at people under the legal drinking age and using the combination of one of the UK's leading brands and football to promote responsible consumption by adults."
	Carling is perfectly content, however, for that same group of young people to watch Rangers and Celtic on TV or in person at Ibrox or Parkhead, with every player's shirt in the whole stadium festooned with the Carling logo. That apparently does not constitute "improper targeting" in the eyes of either Carling, the clubs or the football authorities. If there is logic there, I am afraid I cannot spot it.
	In my view, the Government need to wake up to the way in which the alcohol industry is grooming potential young drinkers through music and sport. That flies directly in the face of the stated intentions of Ofcom, the Advertising Standards Authority and the Portman Group to protect children and young people from advertising and marketing.
	The only sure way to tackle the problem is removing the alcohol industry's ability to target young people in that way. Banning alcohol advertising and sponsorship from events that are attended by children and young people, or watched by them on TV, is one way to enable young people to develop a healthier relationship with alcohol.
	When the Committee took evidence, we heard of the change in marketing practices towards viral marketing and the use of the internet as a means of getting the message across. We were assured by witnesses that there was protection for young people, because they had to access a privileged site, which was of course difficult to do. However, during the inquiry-in front of the witnesses-I used my internet-enabled phone to get on to the relevant website. I was asked to enter my date of birth to ensure that I was over 18, so I entered the date 30 February 1980 and was allowed entry. I entered a completely fictitious address, which could not possibly have been logical, but the site was happy with that. Therefore, those safeguards to protect young people clearly do not work. One can enter any date of birth, and site will be quite happy to allow access its content.
	We need to ensure that when the industry says it is cleaning up its act, it is doing so and behaving responsibly. I do not attack the industry lightly, and I do not believe the whole of it is to blame, but it clearly needs to get its house in order if we are to protect young people. The market is changing, as is the way in which things are advertised, and there is far less control over internet and viral advertising, so it is even more important that firms act responsibly to ensure that young people are not exposed to the increasing glamorisation of alcohol, thereby leading themselves inevitably to increased health risks in future.

Robert Syms: I was listening to a programme on Radio 4 earlier in the week about marmalade. It was said that marmalade was invented by the Scots in the 1740s to go on toast. Before that, they used to drink alcohol, in the form of ale, for breakfast, so imbibing ale in large quantities and at odd times of day is well known in British history. If one could go back to Hogarth's times, or the industrial revolution, one would see that high alcohol consumption was always a factor. That was why there were always temperance movements, and strong feelings and debates as society developed.
	The Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), mentioned the difference in duty between 1947 and today. To some extent, alcohol consumption has increased because of affluence-people simply have more disposable income and more choices. It is also worth noting that people live rather longer than they did in 1947. One must take into account a range of factors concerning how people live today.
	Clearly, there is a hard core of people who drink multiples of what they should. That is the problem of alcohol abuse. Sometimes they are older people, but they are not necessarily poor, and we also seem to have a problem with young people in some of our city centres. One need only go through the range of Sky channels on television and find a programme about city centre policing to see the problems and costs of alcohol on Friday and Saturday nights.
	I believe that pricing is less of a factor than other hon. Members believe. It is a factor, especially when people buy from supermarkets, but it is also a question of supply. If we want to stop children getting alcohol, we must get alcohol out of the home. Almost any home, including mine, will have gin, whisky and various other things sitting in a sideboard somewhere, which will probably not be locked.
	Some years ago, I was taken out one evening in a Dorset police van. The police were picking up schoolchildren aged 13 or 14, almost all of whom had alcohol, almost all of which came from the parental home. The police would take the children home and show the parents, most of whom were unaware that their kids had alcohol and that that alcohol was missing from their drinks cabinet. Therefore, the first thing we must focus on is parenting. How do we keep an eye on what children get up to because of peer pressure as they get older? Price would not affect that, because a youngster could easily take a bottle of gin from home. That is an important factor.
	Another factor is that we need role models to persuade youngsters to act more responsibly. Sometimes, the footballers whom people aspire to be like these days are not always the best role models for youngsters.
	The debate relates to the Health Committee's report on alcohol. It ought to be said that the drinks industry is very important. There was an exchange earlier in the debate about Scotland: the scotch industry is important in areas of our country where alternative jobs might not be so easy to get, and it is a major exporter that creates wealth for our country; and the brewing industry involves more than 400,000 jobs. In my dealings with the industry as a Member of Parliament, and before that as a councillor, I have found that the vast bulk of it is responsible. The industry appreciates that it must be responsible-the House ought to acknowledge the Portman Group and other initiatives that have been funded to promote responsible drinking.

Kelvin Hopkins: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the Portman Group, but is that not simply a way of making the drinks industry more respectable, so as to persuade the Government not to legislate?

Robert Syms: Sometimes the most powerful message on responsible drinking is sent by the industry itself. Following the changes in the licensing laws, police officers from Poole police station who go around the pubs and clubs say that there has been a tie-up between them, the drinks industry and many publicans. The drinks industry has helped to finance local policing and the training of landlords, which is important. As we have heard in this debate, part of the problem is selling via supermarkets. Most legitimate licensees act in a responsible manner, but they need training, support and investment from the drinks industry. We should not leave this subject without saying how successful the industry has been.
	We must find a way to educate people about what they drink and how much they take in. I have always felt that showing units of alcohol on glasses or products is important in that way. In recent years, many wine bars have gone for larger glass sizes, and people do not always know what they are drinking. Another trend is that wine has become much stronger. The wine that people drank 20 years ago was a fraction of the strength of the wine we drink today.

Greg Mulholland: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, there has been good news on that. Following my campaign to reintroduce 125 ml glasses, which was supported by several hon. Members in the Chamber, the Government have announced that it will be in the mandatory code. Drinkers will therefore once again have the choice of having smaller as well as medium and large glasses-and, of course, there will be standard size.

Robert Syms: Measurement is vital, and perhaps we ought to introduce some means of measuring alcohol in pubs and clubs. For example, a person could blow into a device that could tell them how much they had drunk. We must find a way to educate youngsters about the harm they are doing, which includes the antisocial behaviour that quite often follows in many of our inner cities.
	Although I broadly sign up to the report, I have one or two reservations on what it says about advertising. It is easy to attack the advertising industry in reports, but after all, it simply gives consumers information, on the basis of which they make choices. Advertising can play an important role in getting messages about harm across to people. We should make friends with the advertising industry, because if we could galvanise it into starting to make points about harm, it would be a useful tool in educating people.
	Some of the advertisers have raised concerns about the Committee's suggestions. For instance, ITV and Channel 4 think that the changes could cost them up to £60 million in revenue. There will also be an impact on sporting events. We have to be much more targeted in our approach to this problem. We have to include parents and parenting, and we have to ensure that people know the number of units they consume and the long-term harm that can ensue.

Howard Stoate: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about voluntary advertising codes, but the Committee heard lots of evidence that that was not working. We have been there before with the tobacco industry, which claimed that it could behave, advertise and promote responsibly-but that simply did not work. It flew in the face of common sense to think that it would, because what it was really interested in was making profits. In evidence submitted to the Committee, we saw campaign after campaign in which producers were not sticking to the spirit, let alone the letter, of the rules, including prohibitions on promoting to under-25s and not associating alcohol with glamour or success. This fond belief that the industry can promote itself does not bear much examination.

Robert Syms: Well, I sometimes think that that approach is better than too much of a centralised approach. If we drive advertising off the airwaves it will go on to the internet, which is less controlled. If we have a proper code for producers to follow-and the vast majority do-even if it is not perfect, it is a better approach than clamping down on people, which can lead to creative methods of advertising that are less controlled. The worst examples we saw were from the internet, rather than the press or television. We have to be careful with that approach.

Kevin Barron: I did not talk about advertising in my speech, but I received an email today related to that issue. It states:
	"The Committee expressed concerns about "gaps" in the regulation of digital marketing during your investigations. I wanted to let you know that this week the Advertising Association has finalised a set of proposals to shut this regulatory loophole, extending the Advertising Standards Authority's remit."
	So things are happening in that area because of the report.

Robert Syms: I am grateful to the Chairman for that point. The internet is where the worst examples can be found, and I hope that progress will be made in that area.
	The vast majority of my constituents enjoy a responsible drink. We have seen a change in recent years, much of it because people do not drink and drive these days. As a result, they tend to purchase more alcohol in supermarkets and imbibe it at home, where it is very easy to open another bottle. Drinking in the home is more common, which often means drinking in front of children. Just as there are concerns that the smoking ban means that people smoke more at home in the presence of their children, there are concerns that people are drinking more at home.
	The report is a useful contribution to the debate on alcohol and its consequences, and I hope that it will inform public policy. It may also get into the newspapers and draw to the attention of youngsters, who think that they will live for ever, the fact that they will face real problems if they abuse themselves by drinking excessive amounts of alcohol. I hope that we find the right solutions, but as I have said, I think that the industry is-broadly speaking-doing a good job. However, it can always do better, and we must also look to the high cost in terms of health of some of the abuses that occur today. It will be interesting to see what happens. I hope that we make progress so that people can enjoy a responsible drink, but we crack down on the hard core and redouble our efforts, especially among students and other young people, among whom there is a real problem. There is no magic bullet, but if we do not deal with that problem we will be dealing with its consequences for many generations to come.

Kelvin Hopkins: It is obvious that Britain has a serious and growing alcohol problem, and successive Governments have failed to address it. What has been done so far is mere pussyfooting, and I hope that they start to take the issue seriously before we end up in the same situation as Russia, where the population is declining, largely as a result of alcohol consumption. The Russian Government have finally bitten the bullet and started to raise the price of vodka. We do not want to get to that stage before taking serious action.
	We have heard some warm words about the drinks industry, but the malign influence of that industry on Governments has deterred them from taking the problem seriously and from taking proper action. I hope that the report, which I greatly welcome and strongly support, will help to press the Government to do the right thing. It is time that we said to the drinks industry, "We understand your position-you make drink to make profit. Our job is to protect the population and their health."
	For some five years when I first entered the House, I was the chair of the all-party group on alcohol misuse. I have also raised several questions about alcohol issues. We waited for a long time before the Government brought forward their alcohol strategy, and in the end it was not the most wonderful document and was not terribly effective. In the last Parliament, I also tabled an early-day motion that drew attention to the dramatic fall in the real price of alcoholic drinks as a proportion of disposable income-something on which the Chairman of the Committee focused. I welcome what he said, and I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) also made an excellent contribution. We need action now.
	Other countries have different regimes. I was recently in Washington with the Select Committee, and it was Halloween, which is a great celebration in the US. Thousands of people dress up in fancy dress and go out into the streets. We were in Georgetown with thousands of young people in the streets and none of them were drunk. Indeed, they were all well behaved. That was because the Americans have a rigidly enforced minimum age for the consumption of alcohol of 21. Some of our staff in their 20s and even early 30s were challenged-

Howard Stoate: When I was last in Washington on a Select Committee inquiry, I was refused alcohol on the grounds that I could not prove that I was over 21 as I did not have my passport with me. I was not sure whether to feel flattered or insulted.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend is obviously very youthful looking. No one challenged me, I have to say, but other staff were challenged, and the age limit was rigidly enforced. Indeed, not so long ago, two British sisters were on holiday in Florida, one over 21 and one under. Their holiday flat was entered by the local police who found them both drinking. The older sister was sent to prison for corrupting a minor-that is how seriously it is taken. I am not suggesting that we should be so draconian, but there are countries that take the issue a bit more seriously than we do. We have a long way to go.

Anne Milton: I know a little bit about Canada, which has quite vicious laws on alcohol. Instead, it has a significant problem with cannabis misuse.

Kelvin Hopkins: I cannot comment on that as I know nothing about cannabis, never having used it. I know that others have differing views on cannabis, but that is for another debate.
	In Sweden, they have had serious problems with alcohol. They had typical northern European binge drinking-people would not drink for a fortnight but then get unconscious on two bottles of schnapps. At one time, everyone had a little black book and had to record the amount of drink bought-like a rationing book. That was abolished in the late 1950s, but they still have the systembolagets-the state-run off-licences that control the sale of drink. In Norway, which the Committee also visited, I was surprised to find that in the square by the Parliament building a pint of beer cost £5, so they have raised their prices. Northern Europe has long had a drink problem-it may be to do with the long winters.

Robert Syms: Did the price put the hon. Gentleman off?

Kelvin Hopkins: I certainly thought about having more than one, but by nature I am a person of moderation, although I must say that I am an imbiber of alcohol myself-I enjoy good wine. The hon. Gentleman has talked about people stealing drinks from their parents, but if my son or daughter start stealing my good Burgundy, I would be very upset-but that is another story.
	The UK is now awash with cheap alcohol, which causes appalling damage to lives: it causes death and violence in hospitals and homes. Domestic violence is always, it seems to me, associated with alcohol, as too, time and again, is violence. If we can reduce the excessive consumption of cheap alcohol, of which there are oceans, we can solve many other problems as well. My particular concern, however, is health-we are discussing a Health Committee report-and especially foetal alcohol syndrome, which is a subject that I have raised in the House before, and which has been raised in another place by the noble Lord Mitchell, who made a fine speech on 18 October 2004, and subsequently introduced a Bill to try to persuade the Government to put labelling on alcohol about alcohol damage to foetuses.
	The problem first became evident in South Africa, where many women working on wine estates were paid, in part, in alcohol. Vast numbers of children suffered serious foetal damage: it changes the shape of the face and causes physical as well as psychological and mental damage. In extreme cases, it can be obvious, but of course there is a penumbra-a sliding scale-and a much lower level of damage of which we are not quite aware yet. We do not know how common it is. Who knows? All the problems of behavioural disorders among young children in schools, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, might be alcohol associated. Some research is leading in that direction. It certainly affects IQ, academic ability and the ability to concentrate-all things needed in school-and behavioural disorders might be a symptom as well.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman is making a lot of sense. Does he agree that the standardised labelling for alcoholic products is key, because it empowers people, including pregnant women? It gives them the facts so that they can take personal responsibility and make the right decisions.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I will come to that point soon.
	This week, the  Herald Scotland reported on research conducted by Dr. Jonathan Sher, director of research, policy and programmes for the Children in Scotland study. According to the  Herald Scotland, the
	"study warns that Foetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) and the less obvious Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD)"-
	what I was hinting at before-
	"are entirely avoidable and completely incurable."
	If it is a self-regarding action-for instance, if a middle-aged man decides to drink himself to death-it is very sad, but he does it to himself. If, in doing so, however, a child is damaged for life, the action is against someone else as well. It is, no doubt, deeply worrying for many mothers. Is it not sensible that we warn people from now on that, if they drink during pregnancy, they could and, if they drink excessively, definitely will, damage their children for life? There is much detail in the report, into which I do not need to go now, but the sheer numbers in Scotland suggest that about 10,000 children in Britain have visible FAS problems. On foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, we are talking about hundreds of thousands and, who knows, possibly even more. This a very serious problem, so we need to persuade young women not to drink when they are pregnant, but unfortunately the two are associated, because lots of young women do drink to excess, and perhaps getting pregnant when young and drinking are related-they get pregnant because they have been drunk and taken advantage of by men.
	Teenage pregnancy in Britain is six times higher than in Holland. In many ways, Holland and Britain are similar countries-in terms of culture and the ethnic mix-but we have six times more teenage pregnancies than Holland. Is that associated, possibly, with teenage drinking? I suspect that a lot of it is. However, not only does that cause a problem in terms of getting pregnant in the first place, but those young women continue drinking and then damage their babies before they are born. That is deeply worrying and something that I have been concerned about for a long time.
	It is time to take serious action, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take my suggestions back to her colleagues in Government and to start to think seriously about action. My minimum suggestion is for a seven-point plan-it could be eight, nine, 10 or 12 points. The first is for warning labels on all alcoholic drinks stating that if a pregnant woman drinks, she might damage or, if she drinks to excess, will damage her baby for life. That should be on walls in pubs and on all alcoholic drinks. We should have public information on television, radio and other media about that. Public information should be displayed wherever appropriate to ensure that all women know that, if they drink when pregnant, they are likely to damage their baby.

Sandra Gidley: In France, it is now compulsory to indicate on pack labelling the shape of a pregnant woman with a cross through it to get the message across literally at the point of drink. Presumably, the hon. Gentleman would support something along those lines.

Kelvin Hopkins: Absolutely. The Americans use wording that I have mentioned before to the hon. Lady-so I will not go into the details now-and I think that Lord Mitchell, in a debate in another place, referred to the American labelling too. I cannot put my hand on it at the moment, but they use specific wording that can be seen very clearly. However, a picture of a pregnant woman with a cross through it is one way of drawing the problem to people's attention. Most women either are not aware of it or tend to pretend that it does not affect them because it is too inconvenient. That is deeply worrying, and we care more, I hope, about children than anything else. I am sure that that is true of most people.
	The minimum price argument is overwhelming. The chief medical officer said that it should be a minimum of 50p per unit of alcohol. I would be happy with that. The great majority of moderate drinkers would not be affected at all and it would help the pub trade because people would not get tanked up on cheap alcohol before going to the pub-they would be drinking in the pubs instead. It would also save a valuable cultural feature of our society-the great pub-which is suffering greatly at the moment from cheap alcohol being drunk elsewhere. We should make all cheap alcohol sales techniques, such as happy hours, illegal, and enforce that rigidly.

Philip Davies: Why does the hon. Gentleman insist that the vast majority of my constituents, who are perfectly moderate, decent drinkers who do not abuse alcohol whatsoever, should pay more for their alcohol from the supermarket in order to tackle a problem of youth drinking? Surely even he is not naive enough to believe that upping the price of a bottle of wine by 50p will eliminate youth drinking at a stroke.

Kelvin Hopkins: Sometimes politicians have to take a responsible stand and argue the case. If anybody says to me, "It is my right to buy alcohol that is cheaper than a bottle of water in my supermarket. How dare you suggest I should have that right taken away?", I would say that we are damaging children, people and our society by having cheap alcohol. We have to say that to people and be bold about it.

Kevin Barron: Does my hon. Friend think that the unreconstructed Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) would have done better to come in here at 1 o'clock when this debate started, rather than coming in here and throwing these lines about in Parliament as he has been doing since he was elected here? It would do himself some good, and be better for the people of Shipley, if he represented their needs as opposed to his prejudices.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Can we keep some order in this debate and show some responsibility? I understand the points that hon. Members are making, but none the less let us keep it at a calm level.

Kelvin Hopkins: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I like to think that I am behaving in an orderly fashion, but I cannot speak for other colleagues.
	There is an argument even for raising the minimum drinking age. In America, it is 21, but it is much lower in Britain. That is something that we should consider, and in time we may do so-but not at the moment.
	I would also restore the former limits on licensing hours. I was unhappy about the legislation that our Government put through. I raised the matter with the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), and met her twice to say that I was concerned. Eventually I voted with the Government, on the grounds that they were going to examine the evidence, see whether the change was a good idea and consider whether or not to restrict opening hours again. I suggest that those former licensing hours should indeed be restored.
	There is a vast ocean of cheap alcohol coming through our ports every year. The white van brigade is bringing in alcohol and selling it cheaply to friends and neighbours. We should restore the former limits on alcohol imports that we used to have and rigidly enforce them. People could still bring in plenty: we are talking about the ability to bring in 90 bottles of wine for personal consumption. That was the kind of level that we had. Some people might say, "Well, it would upset the European Union," but I am not terribly worried about upsetting the European Union if it means protecting the health and lives of our citizens. If the same people said, "I'm sorry, but it's all about the free market. You've got to allow cheap alcohol to come in," I would say, "Well, tough. We're not going to." We could have a derogation from the legislation or whatever we needed.
	Those are some of the things that we ought to do. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take those suggestions seriously. We need urgent action if we are to prevent another generation of children from suffering from the effects of the alcohol consumed by their mothers, and often innocently consumed by them without realising the damage that they are doing. Thousands of young people in our society have already been damaged by alcohol, and there are possibly millions who, having suffered marginal effects from the alcohol consumed by their mothers during pregnancy, are performing less well at school and so on. The problem is so serious that the Government should act now in all the ways that I have suggested.

Richard Taylor: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins), because nobody could ever accuse him of pussyfooting around. I strongly support his demands for urgent action.
	Several hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), the Chairman of the Health Committee, have invoked history. I will go a bit further back. In "A History of the Norman Kings", written just after 1066 and all that, William of Malmesbury said:
	"The English...were accustomed to eat until they became surfeited, and to drink till they were sick. These latter qualities they imparted to their conquerors."
	We are therefore talking about an age-old problem-one that is as old as the hills.
	The hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) did not do this, but my job in these debates is to terrify people. The only occasion on which I made somebody change their mind in this House was in the debate on smoking in public places. An inveterate smoker from the other side of the House came up to me afterwards and said, "You've scared me stiff. I'm giving up this moment." Whether I shall be able to change anybody's mind, and in particular the Minister's, I do not know, but I shall certainly have a good go.
	The hon. Member for Luton, North pointed out the problems in pregnancy, which are absolutely disastrous. If women drink heavily at the end of pregnancy, their babies can be born addicted to alcohol and will have to go through the withdrawal process. That is absolutely horrendous. Alcohol in excess is a drug of addiction. It is a poison in excess, leading to comas and things that, in the past, have led to deaths in police stations-the low blood sugar that is not recognised, so that people die of hypoglycaemia. People vomit and then aspirate their vomit. Alcohol is not a stimulant; it is a narcotic. However, it is a very poor narcotic, because it works as a diuretic, which obviously means that people cannot sleep because they have to get up to spend a large number of pennies. Alcohol disturbs the sleep pattern and worsens sleep disorders. The British National Formulary lists 36 drugs or groups of drugs with which alcohol interacts. It is therefore a dangerous substance in excess.
	However, I am with everybody else: not consumed in excess, alcohol can bring a great amount of pleasure, and I would never miss out on the House of Commons claret, for example, or several of the other potions that we can have here.
	Acute binges increase the risk of death, and of injury and criminal charges, either of which can ruin a young person's life. We heard from ambulance drivers about what can happen after bank holiday evenings, and on Halloween or similar occasions. Not only do they have to ferry drunk people to hospital, but if those drunks vomit in the ambulance or vomit over them, they have to clean out the ambulance-it is out of service for ages-and change their uniforms. The effects of binge drinking are horrendous.
	Chronic excessive consumption of alcohol can cause cirrhosis of the liver. Although I was never a liver specialist, in my day one had to do a little bit of everything, and the most distressing deaths were those from cirrhosis of the liver, with patients suffering from jaundice, cachexia, a grossly swollen stomach and distended veins, and vomiting blood. The original instrument of torture was still in use when I was working. The Sengstaken tube is a great big tube with two balloons on the end that the doctor would ram down the patient's throat. The doctor blew up the distal balloon and pulled it back, preventing it from going back into the stomach. There was also a big balloon in the stomach that the doctor blew up to press the varices and try to stop the bleeding. There are better ways of doing that now, but cirrhosis of the liver is still an horrendous illness.
	I shall not go into the costs to the NHS or the effects on families, because those have been mentioned, but what can be done? Education is certainly important, but it has been tried for a long time and it has failed. We were told about a project in St. Neots involving a community alcohol partnership, which introduced a system of stopping and searching teenage under-age drinkers. The results included a 42 per cent. decrease in antisocial behaviour in less than a year, a 94 per cent. decrease in under-age people found in possession of alcohol and a 92 per cent. decrease in alcohol-related litter at key hot spots. That was relatively simple and highly effective.
	Quite a lot has been said about limiting advertising. We made several important recommendations in the report that I do not think have been mentioned. First, on early detection and intervention, we suggested that any doctor or nurse who has an interaction with a patient should be alive to the possibility that they are on the way to alcohol dependency. If that can be detected early, we can do something about preventing it. We also said, in recommendation 16:
	"The solution is to link alcohol interventions in primary and secondary care with improved treatment services for patients developing alcohol dependency."
	From that we recommended a target. I know that lots of people are not that in favour of targets, but the target that we recommended was extremely sensible:
	"Targets for reducing alcohol related admissions should be mandatory."
	That is so obvious.
	Last week I had the great pleasure of judging a competition in the House in which five groups of A-level students, from five different schools and sixth-form colleges, each presented a party manifesto, with a logo and a motto. I gave the prize to students from King's high school in Warwick. One of the suggestions in the health part of their manifesto said:
	"We will introduce a three-strike policy for injuries caused as a result of alcohol, so that repeated attendances at A and E are paid for by the patient. Referrals to compulsory rehabilitation programmes are also made."
	That is an example of young people recognising the tremendous risks to their peers and making some very sensible suggestions. I am even thinking of putting them into my manifesto for the election that is coming fairly soon.
	Another group has also underlined the importance of a minimum age for drinking. However, I believe that pricing is the real weapon, as many hon. Members have said. We have not yet decided whether measures should take the form of tax increases, minimum prices or both, but this is certainly important. I should like to enjoy another quote with the House. It is from "The Surgeon's Daughter" by Sir Walter Scott:
	"The burgesses of a Scottish borough are rendered by their limited means of luxury, inaccessible to gout, surfeits and all the comfortable chronic diseases which are attendant on wealth and indolence."
	Price is crucial. If people do not have the money, they cannot buy alcohol. Supermarket promotions must be stopped, because the pre-loading takes place at home before people go out and that is the end of it.
	We must also aim the message at children. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) mentioned parenting, which is extremely important, but if the parents are not doing the job, someone else will have to do it, and, to my mind, that has to be the state.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman might be aware of the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997, which gave the police the power to confiscate alcohol from youngsters on the street. It also gave them the duty to report back to the parents what the youngsters were doing, so that the parents could take control of their youngsters. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the police should always use that power to inform the parents? They do not do so at the moment.

Richard Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for that, and of course I agree with him. The parents must be told.
	I approve of the Government's Impact Assessment for the Licensing Act 2003 (Alcohol Mandatory Licensing Conditions) Order 2010. In their paper on it entitled "Summary: Intervention and Options", they state that option 2 is their preferred option. It contains five elements:
	"1. Restricting irresponsible on-trade promotions
	2. Prevent the dispensing of alcohol directly into the mouth in on-trade premises
	3. Ensure that an age verification policy/system is in operation in all licensed premises
	4. Ensure smaller measures are available in on-trade premises
	5. Ensure free tap water is available in on-trade premises".
	Those are all laudable aims, but I want the Government to go further and accept that price is one of the most important weapons.
	No one is saying that the Health Committee has all the answers, but it is making suggestions that deserve some thought. Sadly, we are not all like Winston Churchill, who is quoted as having said:
	"I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me."
	I am afraid that that is not the case for the majority of people.

Stephen Hesford: I speak as yet another member of the Health Select Committee. I should like to echo the praise of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) for the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who led this inquiry admirably. It is in no small part thanks to the way in which he and the Clerks of the Committee put it together that we got such an excellent report, and I am pleased that the House has the opportunity to debate it this afternoon.
	I shall say only a few words, as many of my hon. Friends have made the important points already. I should like to say to the Minister that we have a Budget coming up, and that our policy has revolved around mixed messages for too many years. When young people are under threat from a particular danger such as alcohol, mixed messages are the last thing they need. If young people are going to avoid messages, they are certainly going to avoid mixed messages. The Government have not sent out clear messages on this issue so far.
	One of the mixed messages involves the Government's suggestion that this is simply a law and order issue, when it is not. It is a mistake to think that it is only a law and order issue and to hive it off to another Department of State. This is a health debate, and if we are to make the kind of progress that the report highlights, we must acknowledge that this is absolutely a health issue. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take cognisance of that fact. I am sure that she is not entirely unsympathetic to that message.
	I want to focus on two aspects of the report. The first is minimum pricing, and I agree with the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) that that is the key element in this debate. The second involves advertising and promotion. The House knows that we have been down this road before in our debates on how to deal with tobacco advertising and promotion, in the light of the health risks involved. Of course, alcohol is not the same kind of dangerous substance or the killer that tobacco is, but it is a killer, a dangerous substance and a nuisance none the less. I do not know whether it is helpful to express these thoughts in bald terms, but I will do so, because it might just help to point up where we are.
	When the Government came to the view that tobacco advertising and smoking in public places should be banned, the Department's original position was to propose a hybrid ban, under which smoking would be allowed in public houses that did not serve food. We then had a rather idiotic argument about that, before the House decided that there should be a complete ban on public health grounds, to protect the work force. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that we should not have any more idiotic little debates like that. We should send a clear message. The tipping point for the Government in the debate on tobacco, in health terms, was the number of deaths-120,000 a year-that were attributed to tobacco. They came to the view that that was unacceptable, despite the arguments about freedom of action.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman has suggested that the numbers of deaths made the House legislate for the smoking ban, but did it not also have something to do with the fact that the Scottish Parliament pioneered the smoking ban in Scotland? That ban was in place for a year before it came in here, and its success encouraged the House to legislate on that issue.

Stephen Hesford: I do not want to gainsay that, but the Irish experience should also be considered. A ban was introduced there, and, I think, in Spain as well. There were other precedents, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
	I have said that alcohol is not the dangerous substance that tobacco is, but, as the Health Committee heard, the death rate from tobacco-related illness was 120,000 a year when the Government decided to take action to ban the advertising of tobacco products. The death rate from alcohol-related diseases is now about 40,000. Would the tipping point be 80,000 or 100,000? Is it only at that point that the Government would want to act? I would like to ask the House and the Minister to reflect, as we might prefer action sooner than that-if not quite to nip the problem in the bud, certainly to head off the problem and stop it getting worse. It is a sort of precautionary principle. It seems to me that 40,000 deaths a year are too many, in view of the tragedy that this means for the people involved and their families. I thus remind the Minister that we are now at the point where action needs to be taken.
	There are comparator countries. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has just mentioned the Scottish experience, and France is also interesting. As I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford mentioned in passing, the advertising of alcohol on television and in the cinema is banned in France. That provides a way forward, sending an absolutely clear cultural message to anyone susceptible to that advertising and to the drinks industry.
	Finally, I want to deal with minimum pricing. It seems indisputable that minimum pricing has to be the way forward. The chief medical officer has recommended it and I know that the Minister would not readily want to reject such clear advice from such a respected source.

Kelvin Hopkins: To reinforce my hon. Friend's point, I studied and taught economics, so I know about a thing called a demand curve, which shows that if the price is raised, consumption goes down.

Stephen Hesford: I thank my hon. Friend, but it is more sophisticated than that, as the price rise is aimed at those who are the most vulnerable. That is why this would be such a successful and discriminatory measure-discriminatory in the positive sense that it discriminates in the interest of those who need assistance to avoid the dangers that they are not presently able to avoid. I mean, of course, young people, who are bombarded with the availability of alcohol to a shocking extent.
	I do not understand the Government's objection and I ask the Minister to deal with it. Is it that 40,000 deaths a year from alcohol-related diseases are not enough to be a tipping point? Is it that they believe the interests of the moderate drinker would be unnecessarily prejudiced? If so, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has dealt with that point, showing that the interests of the moderate drinker consuming the recommended units would not be particularly prejudiced. Is it because, as we approach a general election, with a Budget adjacent to it, the Government do not want to be seen as killjoys? Perhaps they see it as politically dangerous, so they do not want to do the right thing. I think I can assist the Minister on that point, too.
	It would be helpful if the Conservative Front-Bench team made the point clearly in this debate, unlike Conservative members of the Health Committee who voted against minimum pricing. In a recent Statutory Instrument Committee, we considered the five new tests mentioned today by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor). The Tory Front-Bench spokesperson on that Committee said that it was absolutely the Conservative policy to support minimum pricing. So whether the reason for the reticence about this policy relates to party politics or the nanny state or bad timing, I can tell the Minister that it is no longer an issue. Let us hope that the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), who I see is talking to a colleague rather than listening to the debate, will confirm that it is indeed Tory party policy to support minimum pricing, as was mentioned in the Statutory Instrument Committee. If she did, it would be a considerable step forward for the debate generally and it would help the Minister.
	The House knows that I am stepping down at the forthcoming general election. I do not know whether this will be my last address to the House, but if it is, I could not have chosen a more important issue on which I would like to see progress made. I hope that what I and my colleagues have said today is not the last word, but the first word to start a process of moving forward on areas such as minimum pricing.

Pete Wishart: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), and I really hope that this will not be his last contribution in this place. If it is, it is a pretty good note to go out on. I warmly congratulate him on his speech. It was also a delight to follow the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) in his always pleasant tour around the instruments of death, pain and torture that he always shares with the House.
	My contribution will be brief. I mainly want to congratulate the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), the Chair of the Health Committee, and his colleagues on what I think is a very good, if not excellent, report. It touches on all the salient points and makes a number of very useful recommendations. My one hope is that the Government are listening, and listening very clearly, to what the Health Committee says, as it gets to the heart of the matter. If the recommended approach were adopted, I am sure that many lives would be saved and the health of England would be greatly enhanced.
	The report has touched on all the right issues to do with people's corrosive attitude to and relationship with alcohol. We need to ensure that young people understand the key issues surrounding alcohol and, more widely, how to improve the general health of the nation, both north and south of the border. I really hope that the Minister has listened to the many excellent contributions so far from Health Committee members.
	I acknowledge that very little of what the report recommends will affect me, the MP for Perth and North Perthshire, although a few things touch on my constituency. One important example is the minimum pricing issue. The Scottish Government will, of course, make up their own mind about minimum pricing. If it is to be used as a duty mechanism, it will of course affect Scotland as it is not possible to have different duty rates north and south of the border. I looked closely and carefully at the Select Committee's report on duty and I believe there is a great case to be made for using duty as a mechanism for pricing, which should be explored further.
	I am grateful for the many specific mentions that Scotland receives in the report. It acknowledges the work done by my colleagues in the Scottish Government-on the separation of the aisles in supermarkets, looking at whether licensing should be part of promoting public health, and the commitment to continue to examine opening hours. All these are important and it is good that the Health Committee report acknowledges the fine and good work done in that respect.
	It is also heartening to see a consensual, cross-party approach to this issue. We do not have anything like that in Scotland. We have absolute partisanship when it comes to health issues there. It may surprise the House that not one Member of the Scottish Parliament from any of the London-based parties-Liberal, Labour or Conservative-supports minimum pricing. Not one! That is absolutely incredible. It is great for me to hear Liberal and Labour Members support minimum pricing, but I say to them, "For goodness' sake, share your passion for that idea with your colleagues up the road!" There is legislation available that would enable us to improve the health of our nation, but the Liberal and Labour parties in Scotland are acting as an oppositional bloc to prevent it from being passed, which is shameful.
	The position of the Liberals is absurd and bizarre. Two elections will take place in Scotland next year-one for this place in a few weeks and one for the Scottish Parliament in a year. Those who vote for a Liberal to become a Westminster Member of Parliament will be voting for a Liberal who supports minimum pricing, but those who vote for a Liberal to become a Member of the Scottish Parliament will be voting for a Liberal who will be against it. Although the devolution settlement implies different policies north and south of the border, for the Liberal party to espouse directly opposing policies is bizarre, absurd and appalling, and they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. However, I suppose that that is what we should expect from our Liberal colleagues.
	Why is there such opposition to minimum pricing? The same issues are involved, and, if anything, Scotland has worse alcohol problems than the rest of United Kingdom. Indeed, a report has shown that our problems are bigger and deeper. One would expect the Liberals and Labour to encourage us to do more, rather than encouraging us to do less. The British Medical Association, the Scottish physicians' union, the nursing union and the chief police officers-the same people who support the report from the Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Rother Valley-support what we are attempting to do.
	It is the usual story. It is the retailers and those who produce cheap alcohol who oppose minimum pricing. The most scurrilous people, however, are saying that the opposition from the London-based parties in Scotland might have something to do with politics. I would not suggest for a minute that the Liberal party would dare to play politics with the health of our nation, but there are people who would suggest that that is exactly what is going on. The Liberals and Labour down here are anxious to deal with the issue, and the Liberals in Scotland know that minimum pricing would improve health, but they are-some people would suggest-playing politics.
	As I said to the hon. Member for Wirral, West, the same thing happened with the Labour and Liberal Executive when we pioneered the smoking ban in Scotland. They do not want to allow the Scottish National party Government next year to say, "We were able to implement primary health legislation that will make a difference to public health." They do not want us to have that opportunity. Their opposition is shameful, and I think they should take a good look at themselves.
	I am passionate about this issue. I wish that the Health Committee's report had gone to the Scottish Government, because we would have accepted it in full, with no reservations. It is a good report which contains everything that is required for a responsible Government to get on top of the issue. What a lot of nonsense we hear from those who oppose minimum pricing!
	I represent three fantastic whisky distilleries in my constituency, two of which support minimum pricing. I do not see any behooded guys hanging around in the parks getting off their faces on a bottle of prime malt whisky. They drink cheap cider. None of them is going around consuming a good bottle of Edradour from my constituency. I wish more people would consume Edradour, because it is a very fine product.
	There is no good reason why minimum pricing cannot be supported. It will improve the public health of our nation. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman's report were lying in front of our colleagues in Scotland, but unfortunately it is not. Unfortunately every London-based Member of the Scottish Parliament is against what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to promote, and that is absolutely shameless.
	I hope that England gets the health policy that it requires and deserves. I only wish that we could as well, and I wish that Labour politicians-two of whom have belatedly arrived in the Chamber-would go up there and ensure that their colleagues in the Scottish Parliament support these proposals.

James McGovern: rose-

Pete Wishart: Of course I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has only just arrived. What he should do is go up the road to the Scottish Government and persuade them to do the right thing.

John Grogan: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). I will happily give way to some of my Scottish colleagues and friends shortly, when I deal with the issue of minimum pricing in Scotland. Let me say in passing to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) that he underestimates his influence on the House and the power of his speeches to change minds. I shall certainly stick to no more than four units at the reception that I shall be attending tonight.
	My main purpose today, as chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group, is to forge a grand Yorkshire alliance with the chair of the Health Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) on at least some of his proposals. I think that particularly fitting, because my right hon. Friend was born in Tadcaster in my constituency, the home of brewing in this country and the only town in England that contains three breweries. He also went there to make a speech on my behalf, long before I was elected. He may remember that he did so in a pub. I therefore think it especially appropriate for me to speak in support of some of his proposals in what will be one of my last speeches as the Member of Parliament for Selby.
	Let me go straight to the issue at the heart of the debate: minimum pricing. I am glad to see another Yorkshireman, the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), in the Chamber. He may wish to speak later, but earlier he asked an important question: why should our constituents who are moderate drinkers be asked to pay that little bit more?
	I understand that Opposition Front Benchers are now committed to outlawing the below-cost selling of alcohol. I welcome that, but I should be interested to learn whether that means a minimum price. Below-cost selling is quite difficult to define. Would the simplest way of outlawing it be to set a broad price for the purpose? The supermarkets themselves might welcome clearer guidance. A couple of years ago, I suggested that Sir Terence Leahy, the boss of Tesco-

Stephen Hesford: Tesco is in favour of minimum pricing. I do not think there could be a better illustration of the point that my hon. Friend is about to make.

John Grogan: A couple of years ago, I suggested that Sir Terence Leahy was in danger of becoming the godfather of British binge drinking, given the low prices at Tesco. Some alcohol was being sold more cheaply than water. The response was interesting. I have yet to learn that Tesco has come out in favour of minimum pricing, although my hon. Friend may have better information than me. It has, however, drawn attention to the difficulty of acting alone in a competitive market. If it did that, it could be accused of acting against the public interest, and could be in danger of infringing competition law.
	This is not rocket science. It is within the Government's power to pass an order under one of the Competition Acts, in this House and the other place, exempting the alcohol sector from those restrictions. I believe-this may answer the point made by the hon. Member for Shipley-that supermarkets would then begin to provide discounts on other goods, because the competitive pressures would still be there. Alcohol is not the same as baked beans, and I think it reasonable for it to be treated differently, as it is in other western countries such as Canada and the United States. There is much more regulation there. I met national beer wholesale representatives from the United States the other week, and they were surprised to learn how little regulation there is in this country.
	Scotland has led the way on a number of public health measures. There was probably a Labour Administration at the time when smoking was banned. That was another occasion on which my right hon. Friend and I joined forces, because, although we approached the issue from different angles, we had a common interest. The health lobby-with which my right hon. Friend had connections-and many pub companies felt that, ultimately, a complete ban would be better than a partial one. That was at the time of the smoking ban debate, which within the United Kingdom was initiated in Scotland.
	I hope that my colleagues in the Labour party and other parties north of the border will reconsider this matter. It would help if measures were taken in conjunction with the United Kingdom Government because, in terms of competition law, only this House-as I understand it-could exempt the Scottish Government or, indeed the UK Government, from that law in a way that would make the position legally watertight. I hope that will happen.

James McGovern: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of Scotland, I appreciate that I came in at the end of the speech made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), so he did not want to let me intervene. However, does my hon. Friend agree that the hypocrisy, at worst, or irony, at best, of the hon. Gentleman's party's position is that it says that it wants to raise the price of low-cost alcohol, which obviously comes within the incomes of the people who are earning the least in Scotland, but wants to exempt malt whisky, for example? That party says that nobody runs amok when they drink malt whisky, and the implication of that is that people on low incomes cannot be trusted with alcohol while people on high incomes can obviously be trusted.

John Grogan: As I understand it, any worthwhile system of minimum pricing must apply the minimum price to units of alcohol, whatever their origin. This debate must clearly be had in the Scottish Parliament and I am impressed, as an outside but interested observer, that in Scotland-although they might disagree on the detail-not only people from the medical profession but tenants, a number of police chiefs and the Campaign for Real Ale have come out in favour of minimum pricing. There is potential for a broad alliance.

David Hamilton: The question in Scotland is not whether there is a health issue-there is no argument about that, as has been explained-but about how best to deal with it. We are not using the legislation as it stands. We should be talking about withdrawing licences from those who sell to under-age drinkers and using all the legislation that there is before we move to the second part of the process. It is not surprising that tenants and licensees want a minimum price because pubs now have the real problem of trying to ensure that they can offer a bargain. Minimum pricing actually helps the pubs; it is not surprising that they want it.

John Grogan: I welcome the vigorous debate that is clearly happening within the Labour party. I also suggest that it is happening within the Government. I was just looking at the papers and clearly the Secretary of State for Health has strong views on this issue.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman must be really bemused by being caught up in this Scottish episode of the debate. Let me clarify: everybody in Scotland is for minimum pricing, whether they are health professionals, chief police officers and the licensing authorities. The only people against minimum pricing in Scotland are the Labour party in the Scottish Parliament, the Liberals in the Scottish Parliament and of course the Conservatives, as we would expect. They are the people against it and they are the people we need to persuade. I am glad that my two Scottish colleagues have turned up latterly-they might be able to listen to some of the debate and to hear hon. Members, such as his good self, explain why minimum pricing is necessary.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind hon. Members that interventions should be brief?

John Grogan: Perhaps I can conclude this section of my speech by saying that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland), who spoke from the Liberal Front Bench, invited us all to the Otley folk festival earlier-an invitation that I shall happily take up. If I get any invitations to Scotland or to the Scottish Parliament, I shall happily take them up too. I also understand that there is now an active beer group in the Scottish Parliament.
	Moving swiftly on, as I know that Members still want to contribute, I think that the absolute principle should be that the stronger-or more concentrated-the alcohol is, the greater the level of duty should be. Most people would see that as common sense. Unfortunately, we do not have that approach and, over the past decade, we have tended to increase duty on one of the weaker or more diluted forms of alcohol, beer, whose price has gone up by more than 40 per cent. in the last 10 years. The increase has been less on the very concentrated forms of alcohol, such as spirits, including whisky and vodka, even though spirits are a lot cheaper to produce. Fermenting beer is a much more expensive process at about 20p per unit than the 10p that it costs to produce a unit of spirits.
	It is interesting that there is also an imbalance between the duties imposed on beer and cider. Mark Shirley of Rockingham Forest Cider asks:
	"Does anyone know why there is currently such a difference between the duty paid on similar strength beers and ciders?"
	Let me remind the House: the duty rate per pint on beer rises fivefold between 1.2 per cent. and 7.5 per cent. alcohol by volume. As the beer gets stronger, the duty goes up. That is not the case with cider. So, if we compare a can of Carling and a can of Strongbow of exactly the same size, the Strongbow has 33 per cent. more alcohol but 51 per cent. less duty.
	I hope that when the Chancellor is preparing his Budget and when future Budgets are prepared, the duty on alcohol will be rebalanced. I am pleased that the alcohol industry, unlike last year, is not going united into the Budget debate. Last year, the industry and the various trade associations asked for an entire freeze on alcohol duty. I do not think that that is realistic, particularly given the budget deficit, but I think that beer has been particularly badly treated in recent years, to the extent that as the duty rises there is not the increase in tax take. We have reached the law of diminishing returns.
	Finally, I hope that all parties will support the idea that there should be a lower rate of duty on draught beer, which would help pubs. When I was a boy, the difference between the price of beer in the pub and in the supermarkets was about 2:1, whereas today it is about 7:1. The European Union is reviewing the duty regime and it would be possible to argue that it might allow member states to have a lower rate of duty on draught beer in the same way as smaller producers of beer have a lower rate of duty.
	It is worth noting that alcohol consumption is going down in our society. Some alcohol education is beginning to work. It is interesting to note that the National Union of Students is now pushing something called "social norm" education. That terrible phrase probably comes from the United States, but the basic idea is that getting drunk does not lead to social success and that the opposite is true. A lot of student unions are doing very good work and it is beginning to have an impact on alcohol consumption.
	Licensing law reform has, on the whole, worked in our country. I do not think that anybody would want to go back to the magistrates' taking charge of licensing. Local councils are much closer to where the problems lie. They have the powers to intervene and are much better at forging partnerships with publicans and so on than the magistrates ever were. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins)-I think that the idea of going back to 11 o'clock closing is not one that any main political party is likely to advocate as we go into the next election.
	The Licensing Act 2003 is a good base from which to take other measures and I think that minimum pricing is one of the measures whose time has probably come. An awful lot of the industry supports it-Molson Coors points to the experience in Canada and are not opposed to the idea. Many others, as the debate takes shape, will come out and argue the case. The issue will be near the top of the agenda in the next Parliament.

Philip Davies: I do not intend to detain the House for long. Let me start by apologising to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Chairman of the Health Committee, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), for coming late to the debate, but I have been able to follow most of it from a monitor. Given the Chairman's lack of complaint about his own colleagues appearing and intervening in the debate, I suspect that his concern with me is not that I am contributing to it after having arrived late, but simply that he will not agree with what I am about to say. I am afraid that I am going to disappoint him again.
	The report is certainly a useful contribution to the debate on addiction-not, unfortunately, on addiction to alcohol, but on this Government's and the Health Committee's addiction to the nanny state. They have already helped to dismantle the pub and club industry with their smoking ban. Pubs are closing at the rate of 50 a week-many because of the ban on smoking in public places-and the same fate is being felt by many clubs, such as working men's clubs. It seems that the Health Committee, not satisfied with dismantling the pub and club industry, now wishes to direct its fire in other areas, such as at cinemas and commercial broadcasters, to try to close down those industries. Many sports will also be adversely affected if its recommendations are introduced.
	All that would not be so bad if I thought that, in the end, if after all the Committee's recommendations were introduced, its members would say that they were satisfied. The problem, however, as with all these matters, is that the report panders to the zealots in society who are never satisfied. I guarantee that if all the recommendations were introduced, Committee members would, within a few months at most, come back with further recommendations because the previous ones had not gone far enough. This lobby is impossible to satisfy.

Stewart Jackson: My hon. Friend is making a typically robust contribution to this important debate. Does he agree that we should focus not just on the very narrow issue of alcohol pricing, but on the regulatory framework for pubs, given that hundreds of pubs have closed in the past few years for the reasons that he mentions? Does he agree that the kind of community resource that would have fostered sensible and responsible drinking within the community is disappearing? We need to consider that context and not just the narrow parameters of supermarket alcohol pricing.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is right. I commend to him much of the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland), who made a number of telling points about the importance of pubs in local communities. I, too, would be happy to take up an invitation to the Otley festival, and I know that he comes along to the Saltaire festival in my constituency.
	The problem with the political classes generally, particularly in this House, is that when they are faced with a problem-there is no doubt that there is a problem with excessive drinking of alcohol-the solution that they propose has to be constituted of two particular themes. The first ingredient in any solution that politicians propose is that it must show that they are doing something; they have to be seen to be doing something. The second ingredient, which we always see, is that the proposal must not offend anyone and must be superficially popular. Once again, that approach applies to many of the recommendations, most of which would not make a blind bit of difference to excessive or under-age alcohol consumption.
	I was particularly struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who made the best speech that I have ever heard in support of a Scottish Parliament. I have never been particularly in favour of it in the past, but now that I have heard that there are so many sensible people in the Scottish Parliament who oppose his zealous drive for minimum pricing, I think that is a strong argument for it. Perhaps if the Scottish Parliament were closed down, however, we could have some of those people down here and then we might have a more sensible debate.

James McGovern: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the nanny state earlier, but Scotland is becoming something of a dictatorial state. Is he aware that the Scottish Executive are now saying that cigarettes cannot be advertised or put on the counter and even that sweets cannot be put on the counter because they might damage children's teeth? How much of a nanny state, or a dictatorial state, is that?

Philip Davies: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. My problem is that those are the sort of measures that his Government are keen to introduce as well. We appear to have a Dutch auction between the Scottish Executive and the Westminster Government as to who can introduce the biggest nanny state of all. I am afraid that both are going in completely the wrong direction. I agree with the sentiment behind his point, but I do not think that his Government are any less guilty than the Scottish Executive.

Kelvin Hopkins: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman and I come from polar opposite positions, but he is making the classic freedom speech. He is saying that we have the freedom to do what we want, without intervention from the state. The same speech will have been made against the breathalyser, crash helmets, the compulsory wearing of seat belts and a whole range of traffic regulations that are designed to save lives. Freedoms affect other people, not just the person exercising them.

Philip Davies: Those arguments have gone: we are debating alcohol now. I have a great deal of time and respect for the hon. Gentleman, but there is a problem with his logic. The argument appears to be-and the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) seemed to be making it too, if I remember what he said correctly-that so many people die as a result of drinking alcohol every year that alcohol must be banned altogether. That is the logical conclusion of that approach, and I wonder whether it is in fact the agenda of the Health Committee or the hon. Members who make that point. If so, I would much prefer them to have the courage of their convictions. They should be prepared to stand up and tell their constituents that they want to ban them from drinking at all because it kills 40,000 people a year. However, if they are not prepared to go that far, I am afraid that all the measures that are considered to be so important are really just spitting in the wind.
	Implementing these measures from the Health Committee will not lead to a huge reduction in the number of deaths, and I do not think that the Committee's members really think so either. All of this is just spitting in the wind, and I suspect that the measures are really a cover from the real agenda, which is to ban people from drinking alcohol altogether.
	A great many people in the House seem to want to do nothing else but ban everyone from doing all the things that they themselves do not happen to like. I do not think that I was brought into politics for that. In fact, I am speaking today as a teetotaller: I do not even drink alcohol, but I very much defend the rights of those who do. People who want to enjoy drinking their alcohol responsibly should not have to pay extra on their supermarket shopping just because a few yobs cannot take their drink of an evening.
	Today we have the incredible sight of members of the Labour party-of all parties-standing up one after the other to argue that some of the poorest people in their constituencies should be forced to pay more for their alcohol. We are talking about pensioners, or people on benefits or fixed incomes, who usually go to the cheapest supermarkets. That is what Labour Members seem to want, even though the overwhelming majority of people drink their alcohol perfectly reasonably and derive some pleasure from doing so.
	What kind of party is it that claims to speak up for the poorest people in society yet tries to make those people pay more? The richest people in the country will not suffer from minimum pricing, because they can presumably afford to pay a bit more for their alcohol. They will not care. It is the poorest people in our constituencies who will suffer, yet Labour Members seem very happy to stand up, one after another, and speak in support of these proposals. Where did they lose their way? How did they lose their roots? Which people in this country do they represent now? They certainly do not speak up for the poorest people in their constituencies, or for the overwhelming majority of people who like to drink their alcohol in moderation.
	Minimum pricing will not stop young people going into town centres on a Friday and Saturday night with the intention of getting bladdered-or whatever term is in current usage. The price is irrelevant, because those young people set out to get bladdered. They do not set out to spend £15 or £20 on a night, they set out to get absolutely drunk. Making decent people pay a bit more for their alcohol in supermarkets will not solve that.
	It is simplistic beyond belief for people to stand up in here and say, "I know: if we put an extra 40p on a bottle of wine, or 50p on a can of beer, the whole problem of youth drinking and people causing carnage in town centres is going to disappear." I would be worried if anyone seriously believed that, because it would show how out of touch with how the world works they were-but I suspect that people who say that know full well that such a price rise will not make that difference, but it suits their argument to say that it will. I should like to get back to reality.
	I support one part of what the Select Committee said. Following on from what was said by the hon. Members for Leeds, North-West and for Selby (Mr. Grogan), from anyone's perspective in this debate, it would be absolute folly to increase duty on alcohol, because that would be yet another nail in the coffin for many pubs in our constituencies around the country. As the Health Committee very sensibly said, when a pub sells only alcohol, it must pass on to its customers any increase in the duty on alcohol, but supermarkets sell about 40,000 products in each store, so they can absorb any increase in duty, by offsetting it on to the other 39,000-odd products that they sell across the store. So an increase in duty would be absolutely calamitous for pubs, and I very much hope that, whatever the Government do, they do not increase duty.

David Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and the early-day motion tabled in my name last year that we should change the duty on draught beers and ciders, because that would assist local pubs and clubs in the community?

Philip Davies: I am incredibly sympathetic to the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, because the duty is excessive for many pubs, many of which are closing or are on the brink of doing so, and we need to do something to help them.
	I want to comment on some of the points made about advertising, and then I will finish. The whole approach to marketing and sponsorship is completely wrong and simplistic. I used to work in marketing, for my sins. I am sure that hon. Members are familiar with this, but it is a point worth making: marketing attempts to improve brand awareness and increase market share. For example, when Cadbury sponsored "Coronation Street", I do think that anyone anywhere in the country leapt off the sofa the moment that Cadbury's logo came up at the start of the programme, switched off the TV and rushed to the nearest confectioner to buy a bar of Dairy Milk. That is not the purpose of marketing. Its purpose is that the next time someone goes to buy a bar of chocolate they will buy a bar of Dairy Milk, rather than a Kit Kat. That is the whole point of marketing.
	When I did my marketing for Asda, we did not expect anyone to get up following a TV advert and rush to the nearest Asda supermarket, much as we would have liked them to, no doubt; we just hoped that the next time that went to the supermarket, they would go to Asda rather than Tesco. All the banning of advertising, sponsorship and so on does not make a blind bit of difference to consumption overall, but it does make a big difference to how much of each brand people drink.

Kelvin Hopkins: The classic argument used by tobacco and cigarette producers was that advertising was intended not to encourage people to smoke, but to encourage them to smoke one brand rather than another. We thought that that was nonsense: we dismissed it, and we introduced the ban on advertising.

Philip Davies: Yes, indeed, and that was folly as well, but I am afraid that that is one element of the nanny state that has already got through. I am trying to prevent the next swathe of the nanny state from being introduced.

James McGovern: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there seems to be no evidence to suggest that since the smoking ban came in fewer people smoke, so putting a minimum price on alcohol does not suggest that people will drink less?

Philip Davies: There are long-term trends, and what is reducing smoking is not the ban on advertising brands, but the fact that fewer people are smoking anyway, as part of a longer-term trend. Alcohol consumption is going down. Alcohol consumption may drop after introducing such measures, but that does not mean that it has fallen because of them; it will probably fall anyway. The hon. Gentleman is right: minimum pricing and banning advertising will not make any material difference to people who want to go out and get drunk, despite all the problems that they will suffer as a result. However, there will be a big knock-on effect on many other people.
	Let me explain why I think some of the proposed alcohol advertising bans are so simplistic. The Committee recommends a ban on cinema advertising in relation to films classified for under-18s. Superficially, that sounds like a sensible way to stop advertising to young people. The problem is that a film's classification bears no resemblance to the age of the people watching it. I am happy for anyone to argue otherwise, but I suspect from reading the report, in which it gets only a passing reference, that that the Health Committee did not go through the idea in any detail. I bet that the age profile of audiences of films with an 18 classification is younger than that of the audiences of many 12 or PG-classified films. Many older people do not want to see an 18 film, because it is full of gore, violence and sex and all sorts of things that they do not want to see. Films classified 18 are often targeted at a younger audience than PG or 12 films. Allowing alcohol advertising only in relation to 18-classified films will probably ensure that more younger people see such advertising than the current arrangements allow. Superficially it seems like a good idea, but like much of the report, it appears that the Committee did not think about it in any great detail, let alone analyse it.
	There is a recommendation that a 9 o'clock watershed should be introduced for television advertising, but that, too, is untargeted. The current rules already forbid alcohol advertisements in programmes targeted at under-18s, and those rules apply 24 hours a day. Given services such as Sky Plus and the ease of recording programmes, a watershed is meaningless. All such a measure will do is have a huge impact on the revenue of commercial broadcasters, many of which are struggling to keep going as it is. Huge damage will be caused, and if we are not careful, we will be left with a BBC monopoly, but we will have made no difference to the amount of alcohol consumed by people in this country.
	The Committee recommends that
	"No event should be sponsored if more than 10% of those attending are under 18 years of age."
	On what evidence was that based? Absolutely none. It is simply another way of introducing the nanny state. In fact, according to recent research by Cardiff business school, an alcohol sponsorship ban would have little effect on youth drinking patterns. That is the view of someone who has researched the subject-unlike the Health Committee, it seems, which is just scrabbling around for new regulations to introduce to increase the nanny state. It does not matter to the Committee if the measures make no difference; it just wants even more restrictions.
	The study, which was published by the  International Journal of Sports Marketing  & Sponsorship, found
	"no significant statistical correlations between sports sponsorship awareness and attitudes to alcohol use."
	Where is that mentioned in the Health Committee's report? Did the Committee read that study? Apparently not, because it did not suit their prejudices. What such a ban would do-if the Government were daft enough to introduce it-is make a huge hole in the funding for many sports in this country. Presumably, the Health Committee is one of those bodies that is always banging on about how people should do more exercise, take up sports and so on, yet here it is proposing a measure which the people who have studied the subject say will make no difference to alcohol consumption, but will take a huge amount of funding-perhaps £150 million to £200 million-out of sports, much of which is used to promote grass-roots sport in our local communities. Where is the sense in that from a health perspective?

Kevin Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what sports would lose between £150 million and £200 million, if he is right?

Philip Davies: That is how much alcohol companies spend on sports sponsorship. Presumably, if the right hon. Gentleman's Select Committee had studied the subject in great detail he would know that, but it seems to have come as a surprise to him. That is a shame.

Kevin Barron: I think the hon. Gentleman is talking about one sport. I remember this argument being brought up years ago, when we decided to stop tobacco sponsorship of sport. The sponsorship of Formula One and other sports in this country by the tobacco industry was replaced by the promotion of far healthier products.

Philip Davies: The people who have studied the proposal, which the right hon. Gentleman's Select Committee seemingly has not done, came to the conclusion that there is no evidence that it would have any effect at all on alcohol use, yet his Committee is prepared, without any evidence, to siphon off- [Interruption.] That is what the Health Committee proposes-
	"No event should be sponsored if more than 10 per cent. of those attending are under 18 years of age."
	That is virtually every sport one can think of.

Kevin Barron: Read the report.

Philip Davies: I have read the report. Let us-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions, as the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) knows, must be made from a standing position, and not as interjections from a sitting position.

Philip Davies: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being drawn into the right hon. Gentleman's sedentary interventions.
	I know that we have other business to discuss today so I shall not detain the House any longer. I despair at the endless consensus that there seems to be in the House, which is forever seeking to restrict people's freedoms in this country, to try to stop them doing things that they do legitimately and, in the overwhelming majority of cases, without any problem. For hon. Members to lecture people constantly about what they may and may not do, and what they should and should not say, is depressing beyond belief. The report is more of the same-more of the nanny state.
	I know for a fact that the moment the proposed measures are introduced, the zealots represented on the Select Committee will be back for more, and back for more again. They are never satisfied. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) said that he wanted the Government to go a little further and do a little more. Unfortunately, he and the people whom he represents always want the Government to go a little further and do a little more.

Richard Taylor: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman knows the good that the ban on smoking in public places has done. The incidence of heart attacks in Italy, in Scotland and in this country has dropped. We, as a Health Committee, do not act for selfish reasons of self-aggrandisement or any such thing. We are thinking purely of the health of the nation. When parents are not providing adequate control, the nanny state has a place, if it is thinking of the good of all the people.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me; I am grateful to him. I would never suggest that he or anyone else would make those recommendations for selfish reasons-but I think that they are making them for misguided reasons. The logic of his argument on smoking and alcohol is to ban them altogether. It can lead only to that conclusion.

Richard Taylor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Tobacco and alcohol are entirely different. I would ban smoking altogether if I could, but I would not ban alcohol because, as everybody has said all afternoon, drunk sensibly, it has tremendous benefits and is great.

Philip Davies: I am incredibly grateful, because there we have the first member of the Health Committee to break ranks in terms of its real motives-in relation to smoking, at least. I commend the hon. Gentleman for being open and honest about what he wishes to do, and I look forward to him commending that approach to the other members of the Committee, so that they can stand up and be honest about their real ultimate agenda.
	I fear that despite the hon. Gentleman's moderate approach to alcohol, the arguments made by others that 40,000 people a year die from drinking alcohol mean that people want to ban that, too. They do not have the courage of their convictions, however, because they do not think that people in their local working men's clubs will tolerate being told that they cannot smoke or drink any more. It is not what they believe that affects what they say; what counts is whether they think that it will be acceptable to people in their local working men's clubs.
	The hon. Gentleman has indicated that whatever measures are taken on any of those issues, the zealots will always want to come back for more; they will never, ever be satisfied. I therefore urge the Government to ignore those siren voices and base their decisions on evidence and the real world-and evidence and the real world alone.

Anne Milton: I congratulate the Health Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). It was a privilege to serve under his chairmanship when I was elected to the House, and I know that he achieved a personal ambition with the robust report on smoking in enclosed public places. He was right about that issue, and he is right in his ambition to make a similar impact on alcohol. However, I differ from him on some of the ways in which it can be achieved.
	I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on highlighting the wider context of the debate and, in particular, the issue of access to alcohol: "Your granny's got a bottle in her cupboard," that's for sure. He made an important point and mentioned the value and increasingly important role that parents and parenting plays. He mentioned also the drinks industry and those who are more responsible than others. In that vein, I pay tribute to the licensees in my constituency, who have gone to considerable lengths to be responsible. Many have joined in with efforts to ensure that people can go out and have a good time in Guildford while also maintaining law and order and not letting things get out of control.
	The hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is not in his place, talked at length about foetal alcohol syndrome, and about the licensing laws. Foetal alcohol syndrome has not had much of a mention, and I do not think that it was mentioned in the report, but it has been a long-standing problem and continues to be a serious one. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is about damage that women are doing to their children, perhaps unwittingly and unknowingly. They may be unaware of the impact of alcohol.
	The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) made a valiant effort to scare us. His description of tubes was quite effective for some of us, and I congratulate also the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) on his real passion. I do not profess to know a great deal about Scottish politics, but I have learned a little more today. The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and many others mentioned the significant issues for pubs, given the huge discrepancy between their prices and the supermarkets', and the impact of that on pubs.
	I know, and I think we all know now, that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) feels very strongly about this issue-about the nanny state and the public health police. The issue is about balance- [ Interruption. ] I am an eternal optimist, so I always try to achieve some balance. My hon. Friend is right about one point, however: we often have a knee-jerk reaction to such issues. It is terribly important to ensure that measures are robustly supported by evidence, but it is very easy to take the simple route and think, "Oh well, that's all right, we've now done something about it." If the evidence does not bear out the measure, however, we end up having no effect at all.
	Some time ago, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) wrote to the chief medical officer-he has not had a response to that letter-asking why he had specifically mentioned a 50p minimum price for alcohol. Although I agree, and Conservative Members agree, that pricing and taxation can play a role in market changes, there appears to be no real-

Stephen Hesford: I do not mind not being mentioned in the hon. Lady's tour d'horizon of hon. Members' speeches. My speech clearly did not have any effect on her, and that is a matter for her; I can take it. However, I asked her a question-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not have a second attempt at his speech now; I trust that he will put a question.

Stephen Hesford: Last week, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said in terms, in a Delegated Legislation Committee, that the Conservative party positively supported minimum pricing, and that that was itsr policy. There was an exchange about that, and he was absolutely clear. In my speech, I asked the hon. Lady to clarify whether that is the Conservative position, and I think that it would help this debate if she could come straight to that point now.

Anne Milton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I certainly meant no offence to him in not mentioning him specifically. His speech added to the debate, and I am sure that the Minister will make due reference to it and right the balance should any offence have been caused. I have to admit that while he was on his feet I had to leave the Chamber for a comfort break, so I did not hear his entire contribution. I will certainly deal with his point as I progress, but I have only just started. I do not want to disappoint him with the belief that I will go on for too long, but I have a few other things to say. I did not attend the Delegated Legislation Committee that he mentions, so I have no specific knowledge of what my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said. I can, however, ensure that I clarify the Conservative position.
	As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire has not had a response from the CMO. We agree that pricing can have a significant role to play in reducing alcohol consumption, but there is a lack of empirical evidence about the effects in terms of market changes, the economic well-being of low-income groups, and illegal trade. If we really want to tackle alcohol, it is very important that the measures taken are evidence-based. If not, we risk bringing Government action into disrepute, having no real impact on alcohol consumption and, yet again, being left with the negative impact of the unintended consequences of ill-thought-out legislation.
	Our debate started with the Chairman of the Health Committee giving us a run-down of the figures, and it may be timely to remind ourselves of a few of the particularly striking ones. In 1947, we drank 3.5 litres of alcohol per head in this country; now, the figure is well over 9.5 litres. The British Medical Association believes that we have some of the heaviest levels of alcohol consumption in Europe; if that were causing us no harm, there would be no problem. A 2009 survey found that young people are drinking twice as much as they did in 1990, and that a third of men and a fifth of women are drinking 21 units per week.
	Alcohol policy has always been difficult for the Government to deal with. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) took us back probably as far as I have ever heard any Member take us in describing how deeply ingrained alcohol is not only in our British culture but in causing the problems that we now see. It is accepted in a way that other mind-altering drugs are not, and successive Governments have had to strike a difficult balance, encouraging people to drink responsibly while not punishing the responsible drinker. I do not believe we have got that balance right, and there is a heavy cost to that failure.
	The president of the Royal College of Physicians estimates that there are 30,000 to 40,000 deaths a year because of alcohol, and liver cirrhosis increased more than fivefold between 1970 and 2006. The number of under-18s hospitalised for alcohol misuse has increased by nearly 40 per cent. since 2002-03, to more than 12,000 in 2007-08, and the number of adults hospitalised increased by 80 per cent. to nearly 200,000 in the same period.
	We have a big problem, and any doctor will tell us that it is causing them serious concern. It has a huge impact on the NHS, and it is estimated that alcohol misuse costs the NHS about £2.5 billion every year. At a time when we are looking to get the most out of the NHS, getting to grips with alcohol abuse will not only save lives and prevent illness but save millions of pounds that we can reinvest in improving services.
	The link between alcohol and crime is well established. According to the British crime survey of 2008-09, the victims of nearly half of all violent crimes believe the offender to have been under the influence of alcohol. That is a staggering figure. Alcohol misuse has an impact on countless family breakdowns, mental health illness, poor sexual health and even obesity-it is the cornerstone of poor public health in the UK. For every person who is drinking too much and suffering harm, I can guarantee that four or five family members or friends around them will be suffering as a result of their excessive drinking.
	There are clearly many options open to Governments for how best to tackle alcohol abuse, and one that the Health Committee has recommended is minimum pricing. The report highlights evidence showing that a rise in the price of alcohol is the most effective way of reducing consumption. We have known about the link between price and consumption for years, but of course there are powerful lobbying groups that are keen to say that minimum pricing will not reduce alcohol intake. We can consider our own anecdotal evidence. When I was younger, my parents would have an occasional whisky in the evening and having a bottle of wine was a rare treat. They could not afford to have one often, but now I might go home and have a couple of glasses of wine because it is a great deal cheaper.
	Both the Government and Opposition Members want to increase the price of alcohol, because we believe it will have an impact. The question, as hon. Members have said, is what is the most effective way of doing that. We must consider what we need in place to get the outcomes that we want. We believe in a targeted approach via an increase in duty on problem drinks-alcopops and super-strength beers-and a ban on the sale of alcohol below cost price. Similar approaches have succeeded in reducing the consumption of problem drinks in Australia and Germany, and Alcohol Concern has stated:
	"Strong cider, strong beer and alcopops are some of the most irresponsibly priced and problematic alcoholic drinks available in Britain. Measures of this kind would be a positive step towards making them much less attractive to teenagers. It may also encourage production of low alcohol products, increasing consumer choice for responsible drinkers."
	In support of an increase in duty rather than minimum pricing, I shall quote the Health Committee's report. It states:
	"The main case for higher sales duties rather than minimum prices is that minimum prices would lead to higher profits for producers and vendors of alcohol, assuming that any fall in sales would be more than offset by the increase in revenue from each unit. In contrast, a rise in duty would avoid this, producing not additional profits but extra money for the Exchequer. A rise in taxes can also be justified, as we found in Scotland, on the basis of recovering the costs imposed by alcohol...the duty on alcohol currently raises far less."
	I have mentioned other potential advantages of increasing sales duties, one being that it would allow us to target stronger drinks. Minimum pricing is regressive in that the capital made by increasing the price of alcohol will go straight to the supermarkets and shops that sell the alcohol. Instead, why not tax the alcohol so that the profits of any increase can, as the report says, go back to the Government to help to balance the books or-in an ideal world-for reinvestment in alcohol prevention and treatment?
	The debate on minimum pricing might in any case be entirely immaterial, owing to a recent ruling from the European Court of Justice. Will the Minister clarify this? The court decided that minimum pricing legislation on cigarettes in France, Austria and Ireland infringed European law. According to the European Commission, that legislation
	"undermines the freedom of manufacturers and importers to determine the maximum retail selling prices of their products and, correspondingly, free competition."
	I see no reason why alcohol would be treated differently from cigarettes, so I fear that the Government are behind the curve, which is not a new problem. As the Health Committee report states,
	"the response of...Governments"
	has sadly lurched
	"from the non-existent to the ineffectual."
	The evidence may suggest that minimum pricing is the answer, but it might not be possible because of that ECJ ruling.
	There is no doubt that we need radically to change how we view alcohol and that we need to attack on several fronts. On price, licensing and education, we need attitudinal change and, crucially, overarching, funded public health programmes delivered through ring-fenced public health boards, to which the Conservatives are committed. We need not only to utilise current legislation, but a tougher licensing regime that will give local authorities and the police much stronger powers over licensing, including the ability to remove licences from, or to refuse to grant them to, any premises that are causing problems.
	The hon. Member for Luton, North mentioned what the Health Committee report says about the Licensing Act 2003. It states:
	"The worst fears of the Act's critics were not realised, but neither was the DCMS's naive aspiration of establishing cafe society: violence and disorder have remained at similar levels, although they have tended to take place later at night. The principle of establishing democratic control of licensing was not realised: the regulations governing licensing gave the licensing authorities and local communities too little control over either issuing or revoking licences, as ACPO indicated. KPMG examined the alcohol industry's voluntary code and found it had failed."

Stewart Jackson: My hon. Friend touches on an important point. The regulations governing licensing consultation under the 2003 Act are very prescriptive for local councillors and Members of Parliament, as I have found. She is also right to talk about the product pricing within individual establishments. We still have offers such as "Men pay, women drink free," and "Drink as much as you like for £4.99," which is not acceptable. We need to take rigorous action using the existing legislation.

Anne Milton: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right, and any Member of Parliament who has a night-time economy in their constituency will know that we are not really getting to grips with that continuing issue. It is a complex problem. This debate, especially towards the end, has focused on price and reducing consumption, but it is naive to think that it is that simple. As we know from smoking, changing people's attitudes takes a long time and one's approach has to be very targeted.
	I shall give hon. Members more of an idea of what a Conservative Government would do. We would ban retailers from selling alcohol below cost price. We want also local councils and the police to have a much clearer right of veto over new licence applications and the ability to amend existing licence applications. We want to remove the presumption in favour of granting licensing applications and to give councils the power to control the development or expansion of licensed premises that have a negative impact on local residents. We also want to give the police stronger powers over applications and give clearer guidance to the courts about when an appeal against a council decision can be allowed. We would give councils the power to remove licences from individuals and premises that are breaking the law. Importantly, we would also allow elected representatives and community representatives-ward councillors, school governors and residents associations-to make representations or objections to a licensing application and to initiate a review of a problematic venue. Licensing authorities need the explicit power to control the closing time and licensed capacity of premises by changing the relevant statutory guidance, and we also want to introduce a simple mechanism to allow local councils to make licensed premises that open late at night contribute to the additional cost of policing and cleaning up those areas, which is significant in some places. We also want to see tougher penalties for licensees who break the law.

James McGovern: Does the hon. Lady agree that the laws are already in place, certainly in Scotland, to address the problem and we do not need new laws? A publican or a member of bar staff should not serve someone who has obviously had too much to drink. People also have to be 18 before they can go into a pub or supermarket and buy drink.
	Incidentally, the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said earlier, if I understood him correctly, that he is a teetotaller and was shocked to see sex in films when he was 18. When I was 18, I was looking for sex in films.

Anne Milton: The hon. Gentleman is right that one of the problems is that we have a lot of legislation that is not used or enforced. We do however need to change the Licensing Act 2003. One of the most important changes would be to allow more say by local residents. At the moment, we have a mismatch between the night-time economy, and licensees who are not responsible, and local residents. In some areas, the licensees are very responsible-I do not want to tar everyone with the same brush-but we need more democratic accountability on this issue.
	This is a massive issue in terms of its impact on health and in its complexity. The danger with a debate such as this is that anyone who is watching or who reads the report in  Hansard tomorrow will think that we have not addressed huge chunks of it. We have not touched in detail on the issues for people with mental health problems who have a dual diagnosis with alcohol and/or drug abuse. We have not touched on the issue of alcohol-related violence towards children, to which the Committee refers in the report. There is a considerable amount of domestic violence towards children, women and, indeed, men that is associated with alcohol.
	We have not touched upon the need to improve our children's education. There is a lot of talk about children's physical health, obesity, sport in schools and making children less obese, but there is not a great deal of talk about children's mental and emotional health and well-being. We have not talked about the need to improve young people's self-esteem and raise their confidence. Why do they go out on the town and fill their throats, stomachs and heads with alcohol? It is about self-esteem and how they view themselves. We need to ensure that young people grow up with a strong sense of themselves, and with the high self-esteem, confidence and skills necessary to make good decisions about themselves and their health. They have to deal with complex issues, and they need the help, support and education to give them the skills to make those complex decisions.
	That is particularly hard because one of the joys of being a young person-I am not old enough yet to have forgotten-is the wonderful immortality that one feels. That same point is made in discussions on sexual health. I listen to health professionals saying, "Young people need to be more responsible", but young people love being irresponsible! It is hard to make young people behave responsibly when, to some extent, they are revelling in that sense of growing freedom and irresponsibility. So we have to be very sophisticated and clever about how we change those attitudes and get young people not to go out on the town and do what all their friends are doing. They need a very sophisticated set of skills, so we need to get this right. Government action will focus on stopping drinking among those who are already drinking too much, but at the same time we must get those public health messages right. If we are serious about improving the nation's public health, we must view reducing alcohol misuse as one of the key drivers of change.
	Absolutely no one in the House wants to prevent people from having a good night out or a friendly drink. However, we must ensure that the Government send a clear message to the public about the damaging effects that the abuse of alcohol can have. I am not convinced that minimum pricing is the right approach; we need a targeted approach, including targeted duty. Furthermore, as I have said, it is crucial that funding for public health is ring-fenced and delivered by public health boards, about which my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire has talked. Public health boards would work with local authorities, the police and all the other local players, because to improve the public's health, including in terms of alcohol consumption, we also need social and economic change.

Gillian Merron: I thank the Chair of the Health Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), and all Committee members for the detailed and thorough inquiry, to which I was pleased to give evidence. We are grateful for the Committee's report. It recognises the scale and complexity of the challenge that we face. We are looking closely at the report and its recommendations and, as my right hon. Friend acknowledged, I have confirmed that we will be responding shortly. I am glad that he has welcomed the tone of my initial comments in public on the report.
	I have listened carefully to the varying views and opinions of right hon. and hon. Members. We have had a colourful and extensive debate, and I will attempt to pick out the main themes. First, however, I shall set out the Government's position. We take seriously the harm to health that alcohol may bring, and we have in place a comprehensive and evidence-based plan to tackle that harm, to provide information to make healthy choices easier and to support those who need help through the national health service. Yes, we can improve, yes, we want to continue to do so, and yes, the Committee's report will assist us in doing so.
	As today's debate has generally confirmed, there is no one action that we could take to change overnight our culture or the situation in which we find ourselves. Action on alcohol requires close working by industry, community services and Departments across Government. It also requires a careful balance in protecting the rights and the health of individuals and communities.
	Recent figures show that we are making a difference on alcohol consumption and awareness. The latest studies suggest that awareness of the units system, the NHS daily guidelines and the health risks is definitely increasing. Figures from the Office for National Statistics indicate that overall consumption might be levelling off. Average weekly alcohol consumption fell from 14.3 units in 2005 to 12.3 units in 2008. However, it is too early to draw any conclusions or comfort from those figures, although given that alcohol use has steadily increased for the past half-century, any indication that changing attitudes to alcohol are translating into lower consumption is nevertheless a welcome sign.
	This Government were the first seriously to consider alcohol as a public health issue. We published the first alcohol strategy in 2004, which we updated in 2007, based on three main approaches, the first of which was to inform and educate people about units, the NHS guidance on alcohol, and the health risks of regularly drinking too much. Secondly, the strategy sought to create an environment in which the healthy choice is an easier choice. Thirdly, we sought to deploy the experience, capabilities and professionalism of the NHS to provide treatment and support to those who have lost their health or happiness to alcohol, and also to help to prevent that in the first place.
	We have made great strides in educating and informing people, which a number of right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned. Earlier this year we launched the Alcohol Effects campaign, graphically bringing home the truth about the reality of alcohol misuse. Our approach is about working with people to change attitudes, just as we did on seatbelts and smoking. Across Government, our "Know your limits" and "Why let drink decide?" campaigns have gathered significant attention and made the messages about health and the consequences of alcohol real for many adults and young people.
	There is evidence that those messages are getting through. According to the ONS, nine in 10 adults are aware that alcohol is measured in units, while three in four have heard of daily limits and half know their personal recommended maximum. Awareness is even higher among those drinking more heavily. On recognition of the units system, I was interested in the support given by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who is no longer in his place. However, I regret that the Conservative policy would be to change the units system and to seek a new awareness of centilitres. That would be misguided, given the progress that we have already made.
	We are also taking action to create the right environment around alcohol, which means ensuring that it is possible to choose an alternative. For example, the Government will now introduce a requirement to make free tap water available in bars, pubs and clubs, and to ensure that smaller measures are available, which a number of right hon. and hon. Members have welcomed today. Taking action will mean doing everything that we can to cut out the practices that drive excessive drinking, as we have also heard in this debate. That means, as the Home Secretary recently announced, banning the most irresponsible promotions from next month and enforcing age verification. I was glad to present awards at the Best Bar None evening in Lincoln recently, which celebrated best practice across the city in encouraging responsible drinking when people are out and about.
	Customers need to be presented with the key facts when making a choice. We will follow through on the recently launched consultation on labelling by doing whatever is necessary to get industry to co-operate on this important matter.
	In response to points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) and the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), the options- whether voluntary or mandatory-will cover the issuing of a pregnancy drinking warning. We very much want to see that happen, and will consider the best way of delivering it, to improve on what we have now. Under the current voluntary agreement, some 40 per cent. of labels already include such a warning, but we want to go a lot further.

Kelvin Hopkins: As I said earlier, we need public information notices in all licensed establishments-and, perhaps, public information films-to point out that alcohol damages foetuses.

Gillian Merron: My hon. Friend rightly draws my attention to that proposal. The important thing is to get the information to the right people in the right way, in order to make a difference. We are constantly striving to find new ways of doing that. The consultation on labelling is particularly important, because it reflects the fact that insufficient progress has been made under the voluntary agreement and that we want to go further.
	The hon. Members for Poole and for Shipley (Philip Davies), and my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) and for Luton, North talked about advertising and sponsorship in different ways. The Advertising Standards Authority has recently consulted on the rules on alcohol advertising as part of a more general review, and it will publish its response in the coming months. Protecting children and young people is rightly a priority for the Government, but we also need to find evidence for any changes and ensure the proportionality of any controls. The ASA is considering a range of issues that will be relevant to this debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford talked about the sponsorship of TV programmes by alcohol companies. That is already covered by the broadcast code of advertising practice, and it is subject to the same rules that we have brought in on TV advertising. For example, alcohol advertising cannot take place alongside programmes that are popular with children. The sponsorship of sports events is self-regulated in a similar fashion through the Portman Group. We will keep all the rules on alcohol advertising under review, and we will be interested to see the results of the consultation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North and the hon. Member for Poole raised the issue of our relationship with the industry, and I know that the Select Committee report identifies that as a matter of concern. I do not believe, however, that the Government are unduly influenced by the alcohol industry. Our relationship is rather different: it is understood that the Government set policy, and also that, when possible, we work constructively with the industry to ensure that it meets its responsibilities. If we did not work together in that way, we would be denying the industry the responsibility that it knows it has in respect of the effects of its products. The hon. Member for Poole was keen to point out that the industry had recently agreed to fund the Drinkaware Trust, an independent charity that highlights the dangers of alcohol misuse. The industry has committed to paying £5 million a year for the next three years to support the trust.
	Let me make it clear, however, that having a working relationship with the industry does not preclude us from taking action when necessary; nor does it drown out other voices. We continue to work closely with a wide range of other partners, including academics and members of the medical profession and the third sector. Most recently, we have worked closely on the Alcohol Effects campaign with the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK and the Stroke Association, and I am grateful to those organisations for their contributions.
	There has been a great deal of discussion on the important matter of pricing. Let me say at the outset that we believe pricing does matter, and we are already taking action on cheap alcohol. As I said earlier, we have used the mandatory code to ban the most irresponsible and harmful promotions from next month. They include the "all you can drink" offers, the dentists chairs, free drinks for women, and speed-drinking possibilities.
	Action on alcohol pricing must of course be based on evidence. I note that the Select Committee report pays tribute to the quality of some of the Department's analysis, such as the review of the effects of alcohol pricing and promotion in 2008. The Home Office is researching the links between pricing, crime and commerce, and we are particularly concerned about the sale of alcohol at below the cost price, which has been raised a number of times in the debate.
	Of course price is an issue and it is one that we continue to explore. I believe that a serious discussion on pricing is important because I want to ensure that we do what works.

John Grogan: The Minister mentions below-cost selling; would banning such selling be a possible first measure?

Gillian Merron: It is too early to be drawn on an exact response, but I want to assure my hon. Friend that we understand the difficulty it creates and the need to address it. We are looking for the most appropriate way to deal with it, and the same applies to minimum pricing. I respect the views of a number of right hon. and hon. Members on that.
	Specifically on minimum pricing, we want to know more about the impact it would have on the industry, about the effects of regional variations, the effect on particular social groups and individuals. It is also the case that we do not want to penalise those who drink responsibly, particularly at a time of economic difficulty. The issue is one that we look at, but it is not one on which we have reached the same conclusion as the Select Committee.

John Redwood: When both parties tackled the problem of drink-driving, we attacked the drivers and said that their licences would be forfeited if they carried on with that behaviour, and they changed. What is the appropriate thing to say to people who abuse alcohol and behave violently or in an antisocial way in our town and city centres at night? Surely that should be the target of our debate.

Gillian Merron: That is an interesting point, but if the right hon. Gentleman had been in his place throughout the debate, he would have heard a whole range of discussion points. I would say that pricing took up a very substantial amount of our time, and that is what I am seeking to address now. I have already said several times that no one single measure can be taken to deal with the problems that the right hon. Gentleman identifies.
	Alcohol duty was mentioned by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley and my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral, West and for Selby (Mr. Grogan), to whose role as chairman of the all-party beer group I pay tribute. I have been pleased to be a part of its previous efforts.
	I will of course raise the issue of alcohol duty with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I am sure the House is well aware that alcohol duty rate decisions are indeed a matter for him and that the primary purpose of duty is to raise public funds for public finance purposes. It is also worth saying, however, that the decisions made in this regard draw on advice from other Departments, including the Department of Health in respect of the health harms from drinking and the Department for Children, Schools and Families in respect of the harms caused to children, and so forth. As I recently mentioned to the Select Committee, we have been pushing hard to ensure that health impact assessments are better considered across all Departments when decisions are being made.
	The hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) asked a question about the European Court of Justice ruling on minimum pricing. There is no clear line from the judgment on the implications for alcohol, but I am happy to keep the hon. Lady informed and will let her know of any further developments.

James McGovern: When my hon. Friend has her discussions with the Chancellor, will she ask him not to go down the road that the Scottish Executive seem determined to follow? Will she ask him not to raise the price of cheaper alcohol to take it out of the price range of people on low incomes while freezing the prices of more expensive alcohol such as Scotch whisky, thus ensuring that the rich can still afford to drink but the poor cannot?

Gillian Merron: What I am sure the Chancellor knows about are all matters Scottish in this connection, but I will certainly raise with him the points that have been made today.
	I realise that there are concerns about licensing. That is why we listened and created new powers for local councillors, which came into effect on 29 January 2010. Those powers will make it quicker and easier for councillors to tackle problem premises by calling for a review to restrict or remove a licence without having to wait for police or local residents to complain. Local authorities already have extensive powers, but they are not always fully used. The Home Office has provided guidance on how to use the powers available.
	The NHS can play a role in influencing decisions by working closely with the police and councils. It can also provide support for those who need it. When alcohol use develops into alcohol abuse, the NHS must be ready to help people to get better and get back on track. Understanding how local provision can change to match local needs means much smarter monitoring and better commissioning. When I visited the Lincolnshire drug and alcohol team in Newland, Lincoln, the staff and service users told me that Government investment had transformed the service, and I am sure that many Members throughout the House have heard similar accounts.
	Two years ago, we created the first ever incentive for primary care trusts to prioritise alcohol services through the vital signs indicator, which tracks hospital admissions. The response from the NHS has been impressive. Two thirds of PCTs have adopted alcohol as a local indicator, including 46 of the 51 PCTs with the highest rates of alcohol-related hospital admissions. We have also created the alcohol improvement programme, which gives front-line staff the tools and guidance that they need to assess local needs and commission effective services.

Robert Goodwill: Has the Minister considered the suggestion that people admitted to accident and emergency departments as a result of excessive consumption should be billed for the service that they receive?

Gillian Merron: We do not think that that would be a useful way of dealing with the challenge that we face, or that it would be in the spirit of the national health service. I am therefore unlikely to pursue the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Maria Miller: Another issue that arises, particularly in A and E departments, is violence against staff, often fuelled by alcohol. There have been precious few prosecutions of people who have assaulted staff. Has the Minister any plans to strengthen hospitals' powers?

Gillian Merron: Abuse of staff, whether physical or otherwise, is always unacceptable. We will continue to take all possible measures to tackle it, working with local NHS trusts.
	The hon. Member for Wyre Forest made an important point about the role the NHS can play in helping to prevent health problems caused by alcohol by means of identification and brief advice. I am pleased to say that that is happening increasingly throughout the country.
	It is well known that the earlier we can identify the people who drink too much, and the sooner we can provide even brief advice from GPs and hospitals, the more we can help people to reduce their drinking and improve their health, and in the end, of course, save lives. My Department is strongly encouraging the roll-out of such interventions through training and a directed and enhanced service that we have funded to the tune of about £8 million a year. It provides what could be described as a tap on the shoulder when people are at their most receptive, and is increasingly delivering excellent results.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way yet again. On this point about the health service and intervention, do health services, maternity services and GPs regularly and routinely give advice to mothers who are seeking to get pregnant or who are pregnant not to drink during pregnancy?

Gillian Merron: Indeed they do.
	In drawing the debate to a conclusion, let me say that the scale of the challenge before us is clear. We know that there have been generational increases in consumption and harm, with 1 million of us regularly drinking more than we should. Hospital admissions caused by drink are rising and the latest estimates suggest that alcohol costs the NHS some £2.7 billion and causes at least 9,000 deaths every year.

Anne Milton: I thank the Minister for giving way. I wanted to leave this intervention to the end, because I wanted to see whether she would mention public health. Does she not accept that public health budgets have been raided to fill short-term budgetary deficits? Until we ring-fence public money and do things differently on public health, we will not make any real progress.

Gillian Merron: No, I do not accept that. My whole speech has been devoted to the improvement of public health. This Government have invested more in the national health service than any Government and will continue our commitment to do so. We will have an NHS that is not only good at helping people to get over ill health but one that will continue to prevent ill health. That is the subject to which we have devoted ourselves today.
	We have heard many interesting and varied arguments and I commend right hon. and hon. Members for the tone and content of their speeches and the range of issues that they have brought to today's debate. The one thing that we agree is that changing the drinking culture in our country is not something that we will achieve overnight. It will not be simple to achieve and we will not achieve it by a single approach.
	By bringing together Government, communities, the third sector and industry we can educate and inform, create the right environment around alcohol and support those whose lives it has blighted. I believe that we are on the way and that the Health Committee's report will assist us still further.

Kevin Barron: rose-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall call the right hon. Gentleman to speak as the Chair of the Committee, but he is aware of the time constraints that we are now under.

Kevin Barron: I am indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	With the leave of the House, I want to thank all the people who have taken part in the debate on the Select Committee's report. Someone said just a few minutes ago that we have not debated all aspects of the report. The report was not about finding solutions: if there were simple solutions to binge drinking and ill health owing to alcohol, we would not have those problems in our society. Clearly, we have tried to open up the whole issue.
	I want to thank all Members who have taken part in the debate. It is true that the pricing of alcohol has been mentioned up by practically everybody. There might have been a consensus on minimum pricing-that is a start-but we think that even if a minimum price per unit of alcohol was introduced, other duties should be considered at the same time. The representatives on both Front Benches mentioned considering duty as a means of encouraging people to drink lesser strength alcohol, and that will be to the general good. Such types of duty have hardly moved for years, so I thank them for their support.
	I have two further points to make. First, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), who is a member of the Committee, and two other speakers who intervened on the Minister, mentioned A and E. The hon. Gentleman said that he had had some students who had said that there should be a "three strikes and you're out" policy in A and E. If people go to A and E for a third time with an alcohol-related problem that has effectively been self-generated, the A and E should think about charging. I am not there yet on that point, but if hon. Members look at the Library note for this debate they will see that binge-drinking or misuse of alcohol costs the national health service and therefore us as taxpayers £1.7 billion a year. The note states:
	"Around 70 per cent. of A&E attendances between midnight and 5am on weekend nights are alcohol-related."
	I do not think that my parents' generation argued for a national health service for it to become a comfort to people who act irresponsibly and expect taxpayers to pick them up off the street and pick up the bill for doing so. My hon. Friend the Minister will have heard me say these things before, and I say them as an individual, not necessarily as the Chair of the Health Committee.
	The second point concerns EU competition policy, which has been discussed by Front Benchers on both sides. We looked at that issue in relation to introducing minimum prices per unit of alcohol, and we discovered that people often use it as an argument against minimum pricing. Clearly, the Scottish Government wanted to introduce minimum pricing in Scotland, but it does not look as though they can convince their Parliament to do so at this stage. They have considered the issue thoroughly and they strongly disagreed on this point, as our report states:
	"The Scottish Government, which has examined this issue thoroughly, strongly disagrees and EU Competition Law does provide for a public health exemption. This exemption has been successfully used by the French Government to ban alcohol advertising and sponsorship in certain circumstances"-
	indeed, the Committee took evidence on that in France-
	"winning a number of cases in the"
	European Court of Justice
	"which were brought by the alcohol industry."
	So there are public health exemptions from EU competition law. If Front Benchers are looking at that issue, I say to them that we should not shy away from making the changes if there could be a public health gain.
	I was convinced by the evidence in the Sheffield report. Clearly, not everyone in this debate has been convinced by it, but this issue will not go away. At some stage we will have to take action, possibly on pricing, to restrict the availability of alcohol and to lower levels of consumption among many of our fellow citizens because those levels are harmful to their individual health.
	 Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54 (4)).

Department for Transport
	 — 
	Road Users (Taxes and Charges)

[Relevant Documents:  The Sixth Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2008-09, on Taxes and  charges on road users, HC 103, and the Government response, HC 995, Session2008-09 .]
	 Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2010, for expenditure by the Department for Transport-
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £606,268,000, be authorised for use as set out in HC 257,
	(2) a further sum, not exceeding £257,734,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs as so set out, and
	(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.-( Lyn Brown.)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will consider the following estimate:

HM Revenue and Customs

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2010, for expenditure by HM Revenue and Customs-
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £242,822,000, be authorised for use as set out in HC 257,
	(2) a further sum, not exceeding £212,951,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs as so set out, and
	(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.

Louise Ellman: I am pleased to open this debate. I shall focus on the key issues identified in the report of the Select Committee on Transport, which considers the impact that road charges have on mobility, congestion and sustainability. By focusing on issues that are as yet unresolved, the report draws attention to key areas that deserve more debate.
	The report and its topic come under the remit of the Department for Transport, but the report's content also involves the Treasury Department. I thank the Minister for Pensions and the Ageing Society for her important contribution to the Committee's deliberations. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark), will reply today on behalf of the Government as a whole, so I hope that he is able to deal with Treasury-related issues as well as those that are the direct responsibility of the DFT. One of the report's key conclusions was that the two Departments need to work much more closely on matters of this nature.
	There is no doubt that road transport is critical to our economy. There are 34 million motor vehicles driving on 250,000 miles of road in Great Britain, and 67 per cent. of freight is carried by road, so it is not possible to consider transport policy properly without considering the great importance of roads. However, there are clear environmental consequences. The transport sector is responsible for 23 per cent. of the UK's carbon dioxide emissions, and roads account for 93 per cent. of those. The Climate Change Act 2008 requires the Government to reduce CO2 emissions by 80 per cent. by 2050. That means that very significant changes are required in the transport sector as a whole, and particularly in road transport. Those changes need to be very wide ranging, and must relate to issues such as new technology, alternative fuels, and investment in a much more integrated public transport system.
	A key element of our report is the confirmation that taxation and charges on motorists engender a high level of mistrust between drivers and the Government. It is very unclear what the cost of motoring is, and there are unanswered questions about exactly how much is raised from motor taxation and how it is applied. Our inquiry looked at that specifically, because up to now it is an area about which the Government have not made the information explicit. We found that we could identify £48 billion per annum that is raised by taxes and charges on motorists, £30 billion of which comes from specific motor taxes such as fuel duty and vehicle excise duty. It is a matter of regret that that information has not been made available previously in any simple form. Moreover, the Government have not made clear exactly how the money raised is spent. Indeed, the various claims that have been made at different times have only added to the confusion and misunderstanding about how the money is spent.
	For example, it has been claimed that fuel duty is at once a tool to reduce carbon emissions, a source of general revenue, and a means to fund transport investment. The Government's attempts to increase VED bands retrospectively by describing the duty as a green tax brought environmental taxes into disrepute. We call for much greater transparency about exactly what is raised and how the money is applied.
	What is the real cost of motoring? Every year, £9 billion is spent on maintaining and improving the road system. That amounts to 41 per cent. of total transport expenditure, yet it is clearly much less than the amount raised by taxation and charges on motorists. The actual cost of motoring must include externalities such as the cost of policing on the roads, as well as health costs and environmental impacts. Some of those items can have financial amounts attached to them so that we can see exactly what the costs are, or at least make an assessment of them. However, financial costs cannot be applied to other items, including some of the environmental impacts.
	These externalities add up to a great deal more than what motorists believe them to cost. The Department for Transport considers that congestion costs £20 billion per annum, and the Eddington report suggested that that amount could rise by £22 billion in 2025 unless major changes are made. The Campaign for Better Transport puts the overall costs of driving at between £70 billion and £95 billion a year, so it is clear that there is a very wide variation in the assessments of exactly what the costs of motoring are. Whichever way we choose to assess them, however, it is certain that to reach a reasonable assessment of the cost of motoring we have to consider the externalities-the extra costs-that motoring imposes on communities and taxpayers as a whole.
	In its inquiry, the Committee supported the calls from most motoring organisations that a fair way to raise revenue was to base the process on miles driven rather than on car ownership. For example, people pay more fuel duty the more miles that they drive, although we could not agree with some of the representations made to us that road taxation should come exclusively from that source.
	We also found in our assessment of the costs and charges imposed on motorists in other European countries that UK drivers are not taxed overall more than their continental counterparts, but we recognised that there will always be limits on what taxation and charges can reasonably be raised at any time.
	Congestion is a key road traffic issue. The CBI repeats the concern in its most recent report that congestion harms business because of delays and a lack of reliability. Clearly, congestion also harms the environment. It must be tackled by the Government's smarter choices agenda, which must include better and more integrated public transport and active road management, but it is also true that direct road charges could be an important part of the package if the difficulties associated with such charges could be resolved. The Transport Committee considered that issue previously, and we returned to it briefly in this report.

John Redwood: The Select Committee looked at the Dutch scheme for road charging, which will be introduced over the next few years. Was the hon. Lady attracted to that, and would it solve the problem?

Louise Ellman: Yes, the Committee looked at the Dutch scheme in our deliberations, and we found that there seemed to be an almost national agreement for a road-charging scheme in Holland. We saw that that was accepted, which was very encouraging, and that the Dutch equivalent of the AA was actively involved in the development of the scheme from its beginning, which seemed to be a way to make real progress. However, we registered differences in how taxation on motoring is levied in Holland. For example, there is a very large charge on the purchase of vehicles in Holland, but its proposed charging scheme would do away with that major charge and put a charge on the use of vehicles instead. We recognise not only the great progress made in Holland and want similar progress to be made here, but the significant difference between that country and the United Kingdom.

Norman Baker: I am interested in that observation. There is indeed some support for road pricing in Holland-hon. Members might find that surprising-but given the large charge on vehicles at purchase, one would expect motorists to oppose road pricing because they have already purchased their cars. Support for road pricing might be even higher therefore in those countries where there is no such purchase tax.

Louise Ellman: The introduction of a charging scheme must always relate to the taxation system in the country concerned. One of the key aspects of the Dutch scheme was that motorists would consider the fact that they might pay the same, or even less, for the motoring that they undertake than the fixed charges that they were paying previously. So it is always important to consider such things in the round and to involve, as the Dutch did, the major motoring organisations in developing the tax proposals.
	As I have mentioned, the Committee has considered impediments to a direct charging scheme-we refer to them in our report-and they must certainly be addressed before major progress can be made. It is clear that road pricing and, indeed, local congestion schemes cannot be implemented without public support. If we were ever in any doubt about that, it became clear when we saw the Government's reaction to the 1.7 million signatures on the Downing street website in opposition to a road-pricing scheme.

Norman Baker: Just to be clear on that point, the public seemed to oppose a road-pricing scheme that would take more money from the motorist. If motorists had been asked whether they were prepared to accept a revenue-neutral switch of taxation, the response may have been entirely different.

Louise Ellman: The hon. Gentleman is right. The question put on the Downing street website was very simplistic and, indeed, misleading one, but it is also true that the public response was so strong that it seems to have produced the reaction of the Government stating that they would not proceed further with plans for road charging. Our Committee felt that the Government should be much clearer about what they intend to do about road charging, if they look at all the aspects that we identified in our sixth report and previous ones.
	Looking at local congestion charges, decided on locally by local authorities, the decisive rejection of the Manchester congestion charge scheme, which was part of a much broader scheme involving massive investment in public transport in the Greater Manchester area, seems to have deterred local authorities from introducing their own scheme. London may well continue to be the only major city with a significant congestion charge, but although the scheme operated in central London has made that a more pleasant place to be by reducing the number of vehicles entering the central zone, it is worrying that the costs of the scheme account for almost 50 per cent. of its revenue. The costs of implementation would have to be borne in mind by any other local authority considering introducing a scheme of its own.
	One way forward might be to consider voluntary pricing schemes, such as the one trialled in Oregon in the USA, where motorists could agree voluntarily to move from paying road taxation to paying according to how much they travelled, with access to entertainment, information and other services linked to participation in the scheme. Perhaps the Government or other organisations could consider that way forward.
	The transport innovation fund was introduced by the Government as an important way to deal with congestion and, in its other strand, to improve productivity, but one of the problems in the fund's congestion strand was the requirement on a local authority to impose a congestion charge before it could access the fund. Our Committee stated that we wanted the funds made available for public transport through the TIF to remain available-indeed, we were worried that because of non-take-up of that fund, the money would go back to the Treasury, which we certainly did not want to happen-but we wanted the Government to change the rules, so that local authorities could use the scheme to reduce congestion and to bring innovative new ideas into play without being forced to impose a congestion charge scheme.
	The Government have responded, albeit perhaps a little belatedly-in the past couple of weeks, in fact-by announcing that they will now phase out the TIF and replace it with a much broader urban challenge fund, which would be implemented after the next comprehensive spending review and which would not require local authorities to impose a congestion charge to access the funds available. We do not yet know the full details of that fund or exactly how it would operate, but it looks very promising.

Greg Knight: Is it not the case that the Government are still arm-twisting local authorities? For example, the council in Nottingham has been told that it will not get access to certain funds unless it introduces a workplace parking levy. Is not that to be deplored?

Louise Ellman: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. It is unfortunate if the Government put undue pressure on local authorities. I understand that that particular scheme, although controversial locally, was decided by the local authority. In our report we say that where a referendum or consultation is required, there should be more explicit rules about how that should be carried out.
	Government investment in transport has increased dramatically in recent years. It has increased by 70 per cent. since 1997, which our Committee warmly welcomes. We are, however, concerned-our concern is reflected in a number of our recent reports-by the disparity in transport spending in different parts of the country. For example, the figures for 2007-08, which are the most recent transport spending figures available, show that £86 per annum per head was spent on transport in the north-west. That is a 16 per cent. increase in spending per head in the north-west on 2002-03. That might sound reasonable, until we look at the figures for London and the comparable figures for the south-east. In 2007-08 £1,658 per head was spent on transport in London-an 80 per cent. increase over 2002-03. We do not want transport investment in the capital to be reduced. We understand that there is a need for greater investment there, but we feel strongly that it is not in the interests of equity or of raising the GDP of Great Britain as a whole that there are such massive disparities in spending between London and the south-east, and other regions. We would like to see the Government look again at that and invest much more in the regions outside the south-east.
	I said at the beginning of my remarks that the Treasury had important obligations and an important influence on transport policy. One of the issues is the cost of transport. We deal at length with the need to increase the movement of transport, to get cars off the road where that can be achieved, to encourage people to use cars less, and to encourage hauliers to use the road less where that can be achieved.
	Cost and charges are important. According to a parliamentary answer in response to a question from the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), between 1997 and 2009 the real cost of motoring declined by 14 per cent., bus and coach fares increased by 24 per cent. and rail fares increased by 13 per cent. in real terms. That is hardly conducive to encouraging a significant change in car usage. That requires due consideration by the Treasury as well as the Department for Transport.
	Transport is essential for individuals and for our economy. How it is funded will be increasingly under the spotlight, particularly as all of us consider how we can best take our country out of recession without damaging the economy, damaging our services or creating unemployment. Addressing congestion and environmental issues in an equitable way, without damaging essential mobility, requires a closer link between transport and Treasury policies. That relates to incentives to produce more efficient vehicles and to develop alternative fuels, as well as to invest in integrated public transport.

William Cash: Will the hon. Lady comment on the proposal from Lord Adonis for extremely fast trains to go through the west midlands? Does she think the potential cost of that is within the framework of resources likely to be available as a consequence of the financial recession and the Budget deficit?

Louise Ellman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I understand that a more detailed announcement about proposals for high-speed rail is imminent, and I hope that it contains more information about cost. However, I certainly support high-speed rail proposals, which are extremely important for the future economy of our country.
	If the whole country is to be improved, high-speed rail must support the entire United Kingdom, and one advantage of high-speed rail is that it would allow existing track to be used more fully for other purposes: to develop more localised routes and more commuter routes; and to leave freight with more track access, which will be extremely important if we are to encourage rail freight. If the hon. Gentleman would care to look at the Committee's recent report on investing in rail, he would see that we want investment in the existing, classic, rail system, and support for high-speed rail.
	I hope that the issues noted in the Committee's report will be helpful in identifying solutions to major issues: the importance of transport, financing it and ensuring that it continues to be important and equitable for the individual and for the economy of our country.

Norman Baker: I welcome the Transport Committee's report and the presentation given by the Chair, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). I agree with her about the economic and social importance of the road network, and I agree that motorists require a fair deal, involving intervention from the Government as appropriate. The Government's response to the challenge of the road network and the requirements of motorists is to look into congestion, emissions, road safety and any other small irritants that unduly affect motorists.
	For example, the abhorrent behaviour of private sector wheel-clamping companies ought to be stopped. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) made an attempt during proceedings on the Crime and Security Bill, which was recently before the Commons, to deal with that, but unfortunately, Conservative and Labour Members rejected it. There ought to be some agreement on that issue. I also acknowledge the Government's good record on road safety in recent years. There has been a significant decrease in the accident rate, and especially in deaths, which is very welcome.
	At the centre of the debate, as the Chair of the Committee said, are charges and taxes, the extent to which they should be used for purposes other than raising money for good causes, such as schools and hospitals, and the method by which they are levied. I agree with the Government, who in response to the Committee's report said:
	"Motoring taxes are primarily revenue-raising instruments, whose principal purpose is to support the public finances and raise funds for public services. Motoring taxes do also have an environmental aspect too...Where possible and appropriate, it is right for the structure of revenue-raising taxes to support environmental objectives."
	That is a sensible policy. The question is whether it is being applied as effectively as it might be.
	We sometimes hear from the motoring lobby that motorists pay a huge amount in motoring taxes and get very little back, and the Chair of the Committee dealt with that to some degree. Suffice it to say that if there were an exact in-and-out financial arrangement, there would not be enough money for other services such as schools and hospitals, and it is difficult to see how the money could be raised for those purposes. We cannot charge directly-at least, I hope we cannot-for schools and hospitals, so some elements of the economy have to provide a net income stream for those aspects that are for the general good.
	It is also fair to say, as the Chair of the Committee did when she referred to the answer to my written question, that the relative cost of motoring has decreased by 14 per cent. since 1997, and that the cost of travelling by train and by bus has increased over that period. The cost of air travel has also decreased, so we have the rather odd arrangement whereby the more carbon one emits, the cheaper it becomes to travel, and the less carbon one emits, the more expensive it becomes to travel. That is somewhat out of line with the Government's strategy on carbon reduction.

John Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that motorists have to pay not only all the costs of the road systems that they use but all the costs and subsidies of the rail system, which have gone up massively under this Government? The main reason for the huge regional imbalance between London and the rest of the country is that London has such a big rail network that is so heavily subsidised. That is not true of the south-east, which gets less, with a smaller increase, than the north-west.

Norman Baker: There are two separate issues, one of which is the regional imbalance. I have some sympathy-as does the Select Committee, I think-with the view that there has been a regional imbalance as regards how much is spent on London, in particular, compared with other parts of the country. However, the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's argument-that motorists are paying for the rail network-fails to take account of other factors such as the need to reduce carbon emissions, the social benefits of investing in rail, and wider Government policies of social inclusion. Moreover, investment in the rail network encourages people to shift from road to rail, thereby freeing up the roads for those who are obliged to use them, so the motorist also benefits from investment in the rail network. There has to be a sensible balance.

Philip Hollobone: The hon. Gentleman said that the cost of motoring had gone down by 14 per cent., although I missed the period that he was citing. In that context, is it a good or a bad thing that the proportion of the petrol price taken as tax has fallen from 75 per cent. in 1997 to 67 per cent. today?

Norman Baker: The period in question was from 1997; I was citing a parliamentary answer, as was the Chair of the Select Committee. To be fair to the Government, however, a previous answer that I have received demonstrates that this trend has been ongoing for 30 years: it is not a new trend that the Government have created, but a long-term trend. I shall talk about fuel duty shortly, when I will be able to reply to the hon. Gentleman in some detail.
	The Select Committee says in its report:
	"Fuel duty has proven to be an effective way to reduce CO2 emissions from road vehicles. It influences the amount of fuel purchased, the types of vehicles purchased and, to a lesser extent, mileage driven."
	That may be true to some extent, but there are significant downsides to using fuel duty as an environmental tax, and as a surrogate for any other measure. Those problems need to be taken into account if we are to come up with an equitable transport policy that is fair to the motorist and to society as a whole. First, many people have no choice but to use their car. Such a tax is therefore a crude mechanism to force up the price of fuel for people, particularly those in rural areas of Scotland, Wales and England, who have no bus service-or perhaps one bus on a Thursday afternoon, if it turns up-and no railway station, and therefore have to use their cars. An environmental tax, if we are to apply it sensibly, has to secure a change of behaviour. If no such change is possible, it becomes not an environmental tax but a stealth tax that is inequitable for many people.
	Secondly, fuel is more expensive, by and large, in areas where there is no public transport. It is almost as if a mark-up mechanism is working whereby fuel is kept at a lower price in places where people can switch to public transport. London, in particular, is among the cheapest places to buy fuel. For fuel bought in the highlands-my hon. Friends the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) recently drew attention to this in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall-there is a premium of up to 13p to 15p per litre. Pushing up the cost of fuel adversely affects those who are most dependent on it, and have to pay the most for it.
	A further issue is that we are, of course, in the European Union-we are in a free market in that sense-and there is the opportunity for fuel tourism if we push prices up too far. The Chair of the Select Committee and the Minister will know of the concern among those in the haulage industry about the practice of vehicles loading up vast amounts of fuel before they come into the country, thereby gaining an unfair advantage over our own domestic hauliers.

Philip Hollobone: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The evidence from the Freight Transport Association is that the costs of operating a 40-tonne articulated vehicle are 8 per cent. higher in Great Britain than in our near continental neighbours, and 21 per cent. higher than in east European countries, whose carriers now regularly use the UK road network for that reason.

Norman Baker: I am grateful for that intervention, which underlines my point. I say to the Minister in passing that along with the differential in the price of fuel-which, to be fair, I must add has narrowed in recent times-there is a safety consideration as to whether it is sensible to have lorries crossing through the tunnel or on ferries carrying vast amounts of inflammable material. We should consider that from a safety point of view, and see whether we can impose a limit on the amount of fuel that is brought into this country.
	Another of the motoring taxes is vehicle excise duty. The Government have made changes to it this year, with the introduction of a first-year VED band-in other words, a showroom tax. They have also expanded VED from seven to 13 bands. I welcome that, because more sophistication of the bands is correct, but I think that VED as a concept ought to be time-limited. I say that because I firmly believe that we should tax elements of our activity as a society that are undesirable, rather than those that are neutral or desirable. In my view, owning a vehicle is not undesirable. Having been made, it causes no particular damage. There is a carbon implication in its manufacture, but there is no further carbon implication if it sits in the garage. The damage to the environment comes from the use, not the ownership, of the car. It therefore seems quite wrong that the ownership of the car should be taxed, rather than its usage. Indeed, the Select Committee refers obliquely in its report to the need to tax the use of a vehicle. I should like to see VED effectively removed at some stage. The enemy is not the car but the carbon, and the Government should bear that in mind.
	I am conscious that cars themselves are becoming much cleaner. A recent report by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, which I visited the other day with the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill), demonstrated the significant progress that the industry has made in recent years in reducing carbon emissions. That is perhaps partly driven by EU targets, but it is also driven by significant innovation and good practice in the industry. From memory, I think that there has been a 21 per cent. reduction in emissions per car since 1997. The industry is doing its bit to make cars cleaner.
	The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside mentioned the congestion charge in London. I agree with some of her comments and wish to associate myself with them. In particular, it is concerning that such a high level of the revenue received is spent on the administration of the scheme itself. That is not efficient or necessary, and it is a matter for Transport for London to sort out. Personally, I do not find TFL a terribly responsive organisation-it tends to be rather arrogant and self-satisfied on occasions. Another organisation might well have acted quicker to reduce administrative costs, and I hope that TFL will do so, spurred on by the Transport Committee's report.
	I now turn to road pricing, because the logic of the Select Committee's position is that it wants such a scheme. Pay-as-you-use-or pay-as-you-pollute, if we prefer to put it in those terms-seems entirely equitable. I want to ensure that there is no confusion in the public mind, as there sometimes is, between congestion charging and national road pricing. They are different things. A congestion charge is over a local area, takes money from the motorist and, typically, invests it in public transport schemes. As the name suggests, it is designed to reduce congestion in a tight urban area. I happen to think that the scheme in London has worked quite well by and large, even if the administration of it is not particularly brilliant. National road pricing seems to have a different objective, at least to my mind. It is intended first to be more equitable to the motorist-I will talk later about how that will work-and secondly to reduce carbon emissions from the transport sector. That is one of the key challenges that the DFT faces, and it has singularly failed to match up to it so far.

Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. Does he accept that a road pricing scheme does not necessarily have to charge everyone who uses the road? It would be perfectly feasible and workable to have a scheme that set the charge at zero for those who chose to drive at unsociable times of the evening.

Norman Baker: That would indeed be possible. The parameters of the road-pricing scheme are interesting. I attended a conference on intelligent transport systems this morning, at which some of the things that could be achieved by such a scheme were discussed. One of the beauties of the new technology being introduced is that it enables Governments to make more sophisticated policy choices than hitherto. The option that the right hon. Gentleman describes is certainly one of them.
	I believe that there is a case for introducing a road pricing scheme that charges for the use of motorways and dual carriageways only, and that charges should vary according to emissions-it could also vary by time of day, for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman gave. It is very important that such a scheme is revenue-neutral for the average motorist. If the scheme is seen as a stealth tax, it will be rejected, just as we saw happen in relation to the petition on the No. 10 website. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside said, that was a misleading petition, but if the scheme were revenue-neutral, it might not be rejected.

Robert Goodwill: Does the hon. Gentleman think that motorists will consider such a scheme as revenue-neutral if it is combined with the 90 per cent. reduction in the roads budget that he is also suggesting?

Norman Baker: I will happily deal with that subject in a moment, because the elements are linked. The traditional policy of Conservative Governments, and to some extent of the current Government, has been to use scarce public money to build our way out of congestion. That is an attempt to wash away the waves on the beach: it simply will not work, as evidenced by the increasing congestion throughout the country. Therefore, we must find a different way to deal with congestion.
	Charging in a sophisticated way for the road network is a good way of tackling congestion. It is interesting to note that business organisations, including the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce, support the idea of road pricing if it is introduced in a way that is fair to the motorist. That is what I am suggesting. In return for the introduction of road pricing on motorways and dual carriageways, I suggest that the fair, equitable response for the motorist would first be to abolish VED, which is a tax on the ownership of vehicles and therefore unjustified, and secondly to reduce fuel duty.
	There would be no net take from the motorist in the scheme that I propose, but the motorist would be encouraged first to make a modal shift to rail, because by and large, the motorway and trunk road network will parallel the rail network-not exactly, but there is a close fit. Secondly, motorists would be encouraged to shift from dirtier to cleaner vehicles, because they could save money by doing so. Thirdly and most importantly-this is a concern to rural Members and, although there are none in the Chamber now, to the Scottish Nationalists-such a scheme would be rural-proofed, because those in remote rural areas where there are no motorways or dual carriageways simply would not pay, but they would benefit from the abolition of VED and the reduction in fuel duty.
	That would be an equitable policy. It would allow people to choose their mode of transport and the car they drive, and to save money if they wished. Interestingly, as I said, if such a scheme were revenue-neutral, it would be supported by business organisations. I believe that a British Chambers of Commerce report due out shortly will reaffirm that.
	As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside will be aware, Sir Rod Eddington told the Transport Committee in 2009 that road pricing was, for him, "an economic no-brainer." In answer to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill), the Conservative spokesman, he said that he thought road pricing could reduce new road building by 80 per cent., so there are other advantages of such a scheme for the public purse. I stress that that is not the only policy that the Liberal Democrats wish to introduce to benefit the motorist. I was taken by the references in the Committee's report to the proposals in the Netherlands, which are similar to mine, although they are made on a slightly different basis.
	The Government response on the question of road pricing has been vacillating. They have said that they do not want to say very much about the matter for the time being-no doubt until they get past the election-and they are like a rabbit caught in the headlights. They did start a research programme and demonstration project in February 2009, and in their response to the Committee they say that they are working to further their understanding of the scheme. It would be helpful if the Minister could say exactly what progress has been made by the demonstration project, what issues have been raised, and when they expect to make a more detailed response to the Committee and to Members.
	It is very important to use taxes and charges not simply to raise money for the public purse for good causes such as schools and hospitals-although they must be used for that, too-but to achieve environmental ends. I do not believe that the present arrangements for VED, tax and ownership, with a fuel duty that discriminates against rural areas, achieve those ends. A road pricing scheme could achieve those ends, and I encourage the Government and others to move in that direction.

Peter Soulsby: My hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee has given a clear exposition of the report, and it was a pleasure to serve under her chairmanship. She spoke of the vital importance of the road network, which was clear to us right from the start and from the evidence that we received. She also spoke about the high level of mistrust from motorists and more generally about the way in which charges and taxes are levied. I do not intend to cover the same ground as my hon. Friend, but I shall address three areas that the Committee considered.
	The first was the issue of road pricing, whether by urban congestion charging or inter-urban road pricing. It was clear that although such road pricing has many attractions, it is by no means a panacea for the problems of congestion. We looked closely at the situation in London and saw the considerable success that congestion charging has had in the capital. However, as we considered the evidence, it was clear that London is very different from any other part of the UK. It is very different from other urban areas and, of course, that scheme shows us nothing about the prospects for inter-urban road pricing. London is very densely populated, it had pre-existing levels of congestion that were unacceptably high and the area chosen for congestion charging is one that enables those who do not need to go into the area to avoid it. The area is also served by high levels of public transport, which is not the case in many other urban areas-and certainly not public transport that is available for the hours that buses and tubes run in the capital. It is therefore not an especially good model for elsewhere, and it was evident from the experience in Manchester, where charging was considered, and the response to the No. 10 petition-misleading though it may have been-that the level of public support for road pricing is not sufficient to make it a politically realistic option nationwide or in any urban area in which it has so far been under consideration. That is not to say that it is not an attractive prospect, but its introduction would be politically fraught.
	The second area is the discussion of further road building. It was evident to the Committee that further extensive road building was not a panacea-

Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman is a valuable member not only of the Transport Committee, but of the Procedure Committee, and he is speaking-so far, at any rate-sound common sense. May I take him back, however, to the question of congestion charging schemes? Does he, like me, think that the idea being discussed in Leicester of banning 4x4 vehicles from parts of the city centre-it has been publicised in the local paper, the  Leicester Mercury-is bonkers because it would affect the wealth of people living in the city, and could deter tourists and affect businesses? Does he agree that it would not be a good idea to pursue that proposal?

Peter Soulsby: May I begin by thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about my service on the two Committees? I must say that it is not always easy to serve on both, given that both meet at 2.30 pm on the same day.
	The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the situation in Leicester. We first crossed swords as members of Leicester city council and often found ourselves in agreement on issues relating to the well-being of the city, despite being on different sides, as we are now. Although I am not aware of the details of the scheme about which he talks, I can see many difficulties associated with such a scheme in a city such as Leicester-not least, in identifying which vehicles are to be penalised in the way suggested. I would also suggest that it would make very little impact on levels of congestion in a city such as Leicester or, indeed, any similar urban area.
	I was making the point that, like road pricing, further extensive road building is not a panacea. Predict and provide, of which some will be aware, is now, thankfully, a fashion long passed. It was an era in which engineers-it was mostly engineers making these predictions-in justification of often grandiose schemes, would predict a level of traffic and seek to provide the flyovers, motorways and other grandiose projects supposedly necessary to meet their predictions. Fortunately, we have moved on from that, and I am delighted that the Government no longer take the view that it is possible to predict levels of road traffic and to provide the roads necessary to accommodate them, only to see them fill up in a couple of years and for further schemes to have to come along behind them to meet the new levels of traffic.
	I was struck, when the Committee received its evidence on levels of congestion, by the fact that many of those seeking to argue for further road building did so on the basis of dubious methodology that costed congestion-costs that are inevitably very high-in a way that sought to justify additional spending on roads by setting it against those congestion costs. As I said, I found the methodology very dubious. It is based on the premise that if we build roads, we will reduce congestion, that if we reduce congestion, we will reduce journey times, and that if we reduce journey times, we will reduce the costs.
	Frankly, those conclusions do not follow from each other. In the real world, building extra roads does not necessarily reduce congestion; it does not necessarily reduce journey times; and it certainly does not necessarily reduce the costs. The evidence for that is not there; the evidence of our experience is that building roads leads to those roads filling up. The Committee received compelling evidence from Dr. David Metz, who has written a book entitled, "The Limits to Travel", which I read after hearing his evidence. I was enormously impressed by the arguments that he put to the Committee and in his book. They are based on some simple measures of how people behave. He demonstrated to the Committee, and very clearly in his book, that when journeys are made easier, in general people travel further.
	That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it significantly undermines the argument that the way to deal with congestion is to build more roads, which is something that in fact leads to people travelling further. David Metz demonstrates in his book that, over the considerable periods of time during which he researched the issue, as well as in different sorts of societies in different places, the time spent on journeys remains remarkably constant. What happens when journeys are made easier is that people travel further. Therefore, rather than having evidence of the so-called costs of congestion that supports building additional roads, we actually have evidence that suggests that people will travel further and more often, making journeys that are, in the broadest sense, not necessary.
	The third set of points arising from the Committee's report that I want to address are ones on which I know that the Government are sympathetic, and concern the many ways in which better use can be made of our existing road network as an alternative to building more roads. I know that the Government are doing much on that, and no doubt in reply to this debate the Minister will draw attention to some of the things that the Government are doing already. Technology is increasingly available that enables roads to be used better and those driving vehicles to receive better information, whether on the roadside, in the cab, if they are driving a lorry, or through extensions of the information available through sat-nav technology.
	Finally on those points, I know that the Government are also sympathetic to continued investment in public transport as an alternative to investment in roads. That includes investment in freight on rail, to which I know the Minister is committed, investment in high-speed rail, on which we could have an announcement shortly, as the Chair of the Committee said, and, of course, continued investment in the conventional rail network. Exciting as high-speed rail will be, it will not provide solutions for the majority of those using the rail system, which is already heavily stretched in many areas. Also important, particularly in urban areas, is continued investment in quality bus services-not services that pack up at 6 pm and are unavailable in the evening, or which are unavailable on Sundays, but services that provide a genuine alternative to people who wish to avoid using a private car.
	I know that the Minister is sympathetic to this point and that he will agree with me, but we need quality public transport that not only provides a journey that people find comfortable, but is convenient and, above all, available at prices that make it attractive as an alternative to private cars and do not penalise those who want to avoid even more private car use and road building.

Philip Hollobone: I am delighted to serve on the Transport Committee under the wise guidance of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). I congratulate her on leading the Committee in preparing the report.
	The hon. Lady is right that, for the first time, we have managed to get some decent statistics about how much money is raised from road users and how much goes back into the road network. The evidence given to the Committee included quite a lot of wide-ranging estimates of the sums of money raised from road users. The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport estimated the figure at £28 billion, the Automobile Association at £46 billion, the National Alliance Against Tolls at between £50 billion and £57 billion, and Her Majesty's Treasury at £32.8 billion. Adding all those estimates, and taking away various taxes and so on, the Committee ended up with its estimate of £48.1 billion for the sum raised from taxes and charges on road users.

Greg Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that, even if the British Government were to freeze all taxes on motorists and do nothing else, the situation is about to get worse? Did he know that that bloated and unaccountable organisation called the European Union is about to introduce, as its first direct tax, a petrol tax on people purchasing petrol across the European Union? Experts have estimated that that will add about £3.2 billion to the cost of motoring.

Philip Hollobone: I am alarmed by the horrifying news that my right hon. Friend brings to the Chamber. It will be greeted with alarm by most of his constituents and certainly by most of mine, especially if the revenue raised were not to be used in this country but instead used to prop up economically unstable countries around the Mediterranean. I am horrified by that news, but I am not surprised. Now that we have signed up to the Lisbon treaty, I am sure that this will be the first of many nightmares of similar proportions.
	The Committee looked at how much money was spent on roads and services used by motorists. In his evidence to the Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark) said that the figure was about £9 billion, and I would welcome confirmation of that when he responds to the debate. I think that we would all agree, however, that there is a huge disparity between the money raised from motorists and the money spent on the road network. In layman's terms, between 20p and 25p of every £1 of revenue raised goes back into the road network, and the sums involved are extremely large.
	A motorist's basic requirement of the road network is that they should be able to drive along at a reasonable speed, without facing too much congestion or too many potholes along the way. This winter, our country has experienced one of the most damaging weather events ever. That was the case for everyone in the country, whether they live in Kettering in Northamptonshire, or Essex or Scotland-

Greg Knight: Or Bridlington.

Philip Hollobone: Or Bridlington, even.

Christopher Fraser: Or Norfolk.

Philip Hollobone: Or Norfolk. Our roads are full of potholes.

Norman Baker: And in Lewes.

Philip Hollobone: I am sure that Lewes has many potholes, too. There are far too many of them. This is a major issue; it certainly is for my constituents.
	I asked the Secretary of State for Transport at a recent Select Committee evidence session whether he had a central estimate of the cost of the damage caused by potholes across the country. He told me that this was not his responsibility, and that it was the responsibility of the local authorities.

Greg Knight: That is shocking.

Philip Hollobone: Well, I was shocked. Indeed, I asked the Secretary of State whether he thought that our constituents up and down the country would be shocked by his admission. He said that he did not think so, because this was the responsibility of local authorities. Given that response, I went to the Table Office and tabled a question to the Department for Communities and Local Government, in which I asked what that Department's central estimate was of the cost of the potholes around the country. The reply was that this was a matter not for the DCLG but for the Department for Transport. A few days later, I got a written response to the same question from the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan), telling me that his Department had no central estimate of those costs. Most people up and down the country will be shocked that neither the Department for Transport nor the Department for Communities and Local Government has a central estimate of the cost to this country of the pothole damage on our road network.
	Thankfully, however, we have the Local Government Association, which has provided a figure of £100 million. That is the best evidence that I have seen of the cost to our country of the pothole damage. That £100 million sounds like an awful lot of money, and indeed it is. When it is compared with the Select Committee's estimate of the £48.1 billion raised from taxes and charges on motorists, however, it is a very small number indeed. I would have thought, given the winter we have just experienced, that there is a perfectly reasonable case for some of that £48.1 billion-perhaps £100 million of it-to be put into our road network to get the pothole situation sorted out.
	Another issue is the number of people using our roads. I very much sympathise with the view put forward by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) that if we build more roads, we will end up with more road users. I absolutely understand that and sympathise with that view, but this country faces a very real problem with the number of people living here. Estimates from the Office for National Statistics suggest that our population is going to increase from 61 million today to 70 million by 2029-and there is nothing we can do to prevent that from happening. If net immigration continues at its present rate of about 160,000 net immigrants a year, our population will go above 70 million.
	I believe I am right in saying that the Department for Transport's central estimate of the number of vehicles on our roads is that it is going to increase by one third by 2025. Although I am hugely sympathetic to the argument that we should not build more roads because we will end up with more road users, I contend that we are actually going to need more road space, because unless we do, our country is simply going to come to a halt. This is particularly important in areas such as Kettering because under the Government's house building programme, the number of houses in my constituency is set to go up by one third by 2021. The A14 around Kettering and other nearby roads will simply come to a standstill unless more road space is constructed. I am afraid that we are going to have to tackle the issue of needing more roads.

Norman Baker: Is not one way forward to make better use of the existing road network and rather than sweating it for three or four hours a day, to make better use of it all day? We could also take some cognisance of my argument-also made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight)-about using road pricing.

Philip Hollobone: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's argument about road pricing was very thoughtful. It may be one of those issues that is hugely unpopular with the public, but it needs to be looked at very carefully if we come to the conclusion that we cannot as a country afford to build more road space. This may be one of the very difficult decisions we will all have to take over the next few years because as a country we have maxed out on the credit card and do not have the money we would like to spend on these things. I would certainly concede that a difficult decision on road pricing might well have to be taken.
	The Road Users' Alliance claims that congestion will rise 37 per cent. in the next 15 years-a very similar estimate to that of the Department for Transport-and it says that UK investment in motorway capacity is among the lowest in Europe. In the 10 years between 1996 to 2006, only Belgium, Austria, Italy and Lithuania built fewer roads, and three of those countries are far smaller than the UK. The alliance also makes the very good point that only 8 per cent. of UK commuters use the train. When we hear the announcement on high-speed rail, perhaps tomorrow, it will be interesting to compare the cost estimate for the high-speed rail scheme against the annual £48 billion we are levying from motorists in taxes and charges. It is roads, not rail, that moves 92 per cent. of passengers and 87 per cent. of freight. Those are the brutal statistics.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend is making a very good case, but does he agree that we could do more with our existing road network if the Department for Transport were better at warning motorists of congestion or accidents ahead? I believe that my hon. Friend's seat can be reached via either the M1 or the A1. Why oh why does the Department not ensure that when the M1 is closed, a warning sign is erected that motorists can see before they reach the M1, so that those who have a choice can switch their journeys and travel up the A1 instead? If more advance warning were given, there would be much less congestion on our motorways.

Philip Hollobone: As always, my right hon. Friend has made an extremely constructive suggestion. Amazingly, the Department for Transport is doing something along those lines around Kettering. At great expense, it is installing information signs advising motorists of just such problems.

Christopher Fraser: I have written to the Highways Agency about signage, pointing out that it is impossible to obtain accurate information about where a problem lies because only road numbers, as opposed to road and city names, can be put on the signs owing to shortage of space. Is that not nonsense, given all the other information that the agency is able to give us on the roads?

Philip Hollobone: It is indeed nonsense. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that point today, given that the roads Minister is present, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to it when he winds up the debate.
	Let me give some other interesting statistics. Motorists pay 4p a mile to the Treasury, while rail travellers receive a subsidy of 21p a mile. Between 1998 and 2008 the major road network grew by 1 per cent., but had to cope with traffic growth of almost 10 per cent. Our country's population is growing at an unprecedented rate, and most people do not realise that. Our roads are crumbling at an unprecedented rate, but people do realise that, because they find it embarrassing to return from the United Kingdom from other European countries and see the appalling state of our local road network. We, as a country, must do something about that.
	In comparison with the revenue raised from motorists in taxes and charges, the bill for the repair of the potholes is not that great, but it is clear to me that local authorities cannot afford to carry out the repairs themselves. This year, central Government should grant an emergency fund to local authorities throughout the country so that our local roads can be fixed. Ministers in whichever Department is involved, the Department for Transport or the Department for Communities and Local Government, should stand up and take a lead. They should say "The Government are going to fix this problem, because our country deserves better than this." Motorists up and down the land who are already paying a huge amount of money to Her Majesty's Treasury would be extremely glad if the Government took that bold and innovative step.

Christopher Fraser: I want to make two or three specific points about the problems that we face in Norfolk. I have said in the House before, and am not embarrassed to say again, that Norfolk is the only county in England without a carriageway linking it to a national trunk road network. If Norfolk is to play its part in the economic success of our nation as we pull out of recession, it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that the upgrade of the A11 is carried out as soon as possible. We have fought for that upgrade for many years, because without it Norfolk will continue to suffer disproportionately.

Greg Knight: Is not one of the problems in Norfolk the fact that, for whatever reason, the council has hatched out roads that are being constructed as three-lane roads, to allow for a middle overtaking lane, only as two-lane roads?

Christopher Fraser: Compounding the problem that my right hon. Friend mentions is the fact that Norfolk has struggled over the years to get a roads infrastructure that is fit for purpose. I share the ends of the A14 with my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone)-he has the other one. Whether Norfolk is able to put forward a plan for two or three lanes, the consequence of its endeavours so far is that the Government have not followed the proposals with the money and the initiative. That is where the main problem lies.
	The issue of road pricing in Norfolk is somewhat anathema to us, because if we do not have the roads infrastructure there is nothing that can be priced or taxed. It is a highly rural county and people in my constituency, which covers more than 1,200 square miles, invariably use the car as a necessity, not a luxury.

John Leech: On that basis, will the hon. Gentleman accept that under a road-pricing scheme proposed by the Liberal Democrats his constituents would be better off when they used their car?

Christopher Fraser: The first thing that my constituents want is fairness in pricing when using the road, which includes fairness in the provision of fuel. In places such as Norwich, fuel is a lot cheaper than it is in rural areas and so elderly people on fixed incomes are disproportionately penalised. In a debate in Westminster Hall a couple of weeks ago, in which I participated, we considered fuel pricing differentials. I am afraid that the Government did not walk up to that problem, and the road pricing issue might well be another such case. I am not going to hold it against the Minister, who is a decent man, and I hope that he will consider this issue with sincerity and will take action.
	The villages in my constituency are dying on their feet as local service provision is taken away. People do not use their cars as a luxury but as a necessity, so roads are all the more important. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering pointed out, the roads are in an incredibly bad condition-we have had a bad winter-but no one seems to be walking up to the fact that a lot of money needs to be put into their maintenance.
	The nub of what I would like to say in my short speech is that in Norfolk, as in many counties, the people who use the roads are not just local people or British nationals but people coming from abroad. We have a thriving haulage industry in Norfolk because of the requirement to move goods from port to the public and from farms to the shops. An awful lot of the hauliers that use the roads in my constituency come from abroad. They often put in the fuel in France, deliver in this country and depart without having spent a penny. They do not necessarily get penalised on the price of fuel as my constituents do. I feel that there is a need to walk up to this important issue.
	I want to ask the Minister a quite specific question. I was going to table it as a written question, but as I have the opportunity to look at him directly and ask it this afternoon, I shall do so. Will he tell us at the end of the debate what the true figures are annually for foreign road users? How many foreign cars and how many foreign trucks and lorries use the roads of this country each year? It is my contention that a contribution should be made by the foreign vehicles that use UK roads to pay for some of the upkeep, the need for which has been so well articulated in this debate.
	After all, if someone goes to France on holiday with their family, they arrive in Calais or another port and before they have got terribly far along the motorway, they are stopped and charged quite a price for the privilege. When they arrive at their destination, they have paid for that privilege. I would suggest that if a family are going abroad, they will not stop going to France because they have to pay that cost. It is an accepted part of the travelling process. In Switzerland and other European countries, one is stopped at the border, they look at one's passport and, without hesitation, they stick a vignette on the windscreen. If one wishes to use their roads, it costs approximately £60 for the year. I hope that the Minister will tell us either this afternoon or very shortly afterwards the true figures for how many people use our roads, and how much money could be raised to maintain our road infrastructure from foreign vehicles visiting our country. I humbly suggest that if a family from France, Germany or Switzerland is spending £1,000 or £2,000 on a holiday in the United Kingdom, they would not be put off by having to pay a small contribution to use our roads for a year.

Louise Ellman: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a section of the Committee's report that focuses specifically on hauliers who come from other parts of Europe? We have recommended a charging scheme for hauliers, for which there seemed to be general support across the industry.

Christopher Fraser: I thank the hon. Lady. I am not here to make party political points, because I do not think that this issue needs to be party political. I accept what she says, I know what she is referring to, and I rather hope that the Government will walk up to this problem. The report articulates brilliantly some of the problems that have been mentioned in the debate, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
	In conclusion, there are fundamental problems, and there is a disproportionate responsibility on the British road user and taxpayer to deal with those problems. Our roads, alas, are not up to the usage of this day and age, which is a pity.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) may not know about that, but he should come to Norfolk and see how bad our roads are, how many potholes there are and how long people have to wait to get into the county because of the lack of a decent road system. He might then accept the points that I am making out of genuine concern for the road user. People know that with the use of a vehicle comes responsibility and cost, but my constituents have for too long paid too much for too little.

Robert Goodwill: I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) for presenting her report. When I first arrived in the House, I served on the Transport Committee under the chairmanship of Gwyneth Dunwoody, and I know that the hon. Lady is carrying on her doughty work. I think that, to some extent, matters have moved on since the report was published, but I shall touch on that later.
	I thank the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) for his comments about the end of the "predict and provide" era, but there are other factors to take into account, particularly the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) made about the population increases in certain parts of the country. That issue needs to be addressed. The Conservative shadow Communities and Local Government team has announced plans to allow local authorities to keep the first six years' of council tax, plus a top-up, when new development takes place. Some of those funds could be used to build the schools and infrastructure needed to support such development. There are also quality of life issues to consider. For those living in congested town centres, a bypass can literally breathe fresh air into the community. Although I take the hon. Member for Leicester, South's point about reducing journey times and generating traffic, other issues need to be taken into account.
	I am a little surprised that the Government have selected this subject for today's estimates day debate, because we had an opportunity to explore these issues only yesterday in Westminster Hall in a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). I guess it is the nature of transport that we can wait weeks for a debate to come along and then two come together.  [ Interruption. ] It gets worse. I am also surprised by the selection because the Government have a lamentable record on investing in roads and because their flagship policies on urban congestion charging and road pricing lie in tatters in the face of public opposition. In fact, I would not be surprised if the Minister were to revise The Highway Code to exclude the road sign forbidding U-turns.

Louise Ellman: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that the decision to have this debate today was made not by the Government but by the Liaison Committee, which comprises the Chairs of all the Select Committees. Perhaps that it is another illustration of the importance of Select Committees.

Robert Goodwill: And there was I thinking that the Whips organised everything in this place. I am heartened to hear that.
	I suspect that the real reason why the Liaison Committee suggested this debate may be that, once again, we will not have an opportunity to discuss transport as part of the Finance Bill debate. That makes me very concerned about what further delights the Chancellor may have in store for the beleaguered motorist.
	Motorists and other road users make a massive contribution to tax revenues. In the 2009 Budget, £26.6 billion was raised through fuel duties, an increase of £2 billion on the previous year. A total of £4.7 billion was raised through VAT on fuel, and £5.6 billion through VED. That was formerly known as the road fund licence but, as we know, it alone raises more than the Government spent on investing in roads last year.

Greg Knight: Has my hon. Friend seen last year's report by Professor David Newbery of Cambridge university, who looked into the question of taxation on fuel? Taking into account the environmental effect of motor cars, he concluded that fuel taxes are twice as high as they should be if fuel tax were to be viewed as an environmental tax. There is therefore absolutely no case for increasing the duty on fuel any further.

Robert Goodwill: My right hon. Friend makes a very valid point. However, having just visited the US, where the price of petrol is low, I think one can see the effect of not having a realistic fuel price that takes into account the externalities that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside pointed out.

Philip Hollobone: My hon. Friend mentioned VED and the amount that it raises. Would it not be helpful if the Minister, at the close of this debate, were to give the House the up-to-date figures on the number of road users who do not pay VED but should, and on the number of uninsured drivers on our roads?

Robert Goodwill: I hope that the Minister will refer to that. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) said that he wanted to abolish VED, but I believe that the need to make sure that a vehicle is insured and MOT'd at least once a year helps to clamp down on uninsured vehicles. I hope that the Government-although perhaps it will fall to others-will do something to address the problem of cloned vehicles and the ease with which counterfeit number plates can be obtained.
	The Royal Automobile Club has calculated that only a third of the £37 billion raised from vehicle taxation is spent on motorists. The figure for tax revenue does not include VAT on new vehicles or revenue accruing from servicing, repairs and parking. On top of that, of course, the new showroom tax will come in in the new financial year, and that will levy up to £1,000 on the cost of some most polluting vehicles.
	One could be forgiven for assuming that this Government included road investment in their massive splurge of spending, which was often funded by irresponsible borrowing, over the last few years, but the facts show that road investment has lost out. The following figures are based on real prices for 2007-08, and so allow for inflation. In the 10 years between 1987 and 1997, the average annual spend on road investment was £6.3 billion-and I do not need to tell the Minister who was running the country then-but in the 10 years between 1998 and 2008 the average was £4.3 billion. That represents a cut of a third in the money going into roads.
	In fact, the peak year was 1992-93, when £6.89 billion was invested in roads. The lowest year was 1999-2000, when the figure was only £3.821 billion. So although the Government make big claims about all the money spent on transport, it certainly has not been spent on our country's road infrastructure. It is no wonder that congestion has continued to be a problem over the life of the Government. They failed not just to mend the roof when the sun was shining, but the driveway lost out, too.
	Two flagship policies have foundered on the rocks of public opposition. First, the transport innovation fund was established in 2004 and promised generous funding for local transport projects if proposals were presented for local congestion charging. Some people have described that as bribing councils to introduce congestion charging. Of the 10 councils or groups of councils that expressed an interest, only Durham looks like delivering a scheme, at £2 a time. The final nail in the coffin was the referendum in December 2008, when 78.8 per cent. of voters in Manchester rejected congestion charging there, despite the fact that it had already cost £24.1 million to develop the scheme to that stage. That aborted congestion charging policy has still cost the taxpayer £41.7 million nationally. Secondly, the rebranded urban challenge fund will no longer include a requirement to introduce tolls. What an embarrassing and expensive U-turn by the Government.
	We have heard from the Chair of the Transport Committee how the Government have backed away from their spy-in-the-sky road-charging scheme in the face of the 1.8 million people who signed on to the No. 10 website. That may possibly even merit an entry in "The Guinness Book of Records". The fact is that drivers did not trust the Government when they said they would reduce other types of taxation on drivers if a road-user charge was introduced. Drivers saw that as another stealth tax and another way to persecute the motorist. Now, of course, the Government have backtracked under pressure, but I am pleased that the Liberal Democrats have picked up that unpopular policy and are trying to run with it. I think they will get the same reaction from the electorate when they try to promote it, particularly as they take the irresponsible view that they can reduce investment in roads by 90 per cent. at the same time. That would have a devastating effect on our country's infrastructure and our ability to attract investment, jobs and all the other ways that the efficiency of a country's transport system can help the people who live there.

Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically ill-informed. Let me make it clear that, first, we do not propose spy-in-the-sky technology. Secondly, the cut would be made to the major roads budget, not to the roads budget, which is an entirely different matter. Thirdly, the entirety of the money that we propose to cut from the major roads budget would be reinvested in railways. Fourthly, the road pricing would be made revenue-neutral for the average motorist by abolishing VED and cutting fuel duty. That is quite a good package.

Robert Goodwill: Well, time will tell. I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman gave me a detailed run-down of those policies.
	We welcome the scrapping of the scheme, but we worry that the Government may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, given that the intention was to introduce a lorry road-user charging scheme. We are concerned about the uncompetitive situation that faces the British road haulage industry. The difference in diesel prices between the UK and the rest of the EU is marked, despite the fact that that has been addressed somewhat by the devaluation of sterling. In April 2009, the differential was about 10p in the nearest countries, but diesel was 26p cheaper on average in the 26 member states than in the UK. That has resulted in a very real problem for the British road haulage industry. In fact, when the vehicles entering the country through the ports and the tunnel were monitored, it was found that 81 per cent. of vehicles using those links were foreign trucks. That is a measure of the degree to which the British road haulage industry has had difficulty competing on this very unlevel playing field.
	In 2001, when the price of fuel peaked, there were widespread demonstrations up and down the country-the fuel protests-and the then leader of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), suggested a Brit disc-a vignette for which foreign trucks would have to pay. The Government of the day regarded that as being against European rules, but in the meantime countries such as Austria, the Czech Republic and Germany have introduced their own schemes for lorries, with Germany using a satellite-based scheme and the other two countries a tag and beacon scheme. As transit countries, they are able to regain the revenue from the trucks crossing their country, which often fill up outside their country.
	It has been estimated by NERA Economic Consulting that the cost of foreign trucks running on British roads is £195 million in road wear, plus environmental costs of more than £35 million and costs of accidents of almost £33 million. We suggest introducing a lorry road user charging scheme in the UK-for all trucks, not just foreign ones, to meet the European rules-leading to a gain to the UK Treasury of about £400 million in fuel duty revenue that currently goes to other EU treasuries. In addition, we would gain the increase in tax, national insurance and corporation tax paid by UK haulage companies, which would benefit.

Norman Baker: Lorries would be caught by our proposed road pricing scheme, but as I explained, as part of the offsetting, we would cut fuel duty and reduce VED to the minimum under EU rules for lorries. Is the hon. Gentleman proposing offsetting savings for lorries in his scheme?

Robert Goodwill: Yes, because the only way to incentivise people to fill up in the UK is by, in effect, by making fuel cheaper in the UK than abroad. Measures would need to be introduced in conjunction with the lorry road user charging scheme to balance its cost with changes to VED or fuel duty revenue, and perhaps a rebate. For administration of the scheme, we already have arrangements whereby VAT is regained, so the administrative burden would not be so great. Varying fuel prices in different countries and exchange rates would have to be taken into account, of course.
	I should make it clear that the system would apply only to lorries. We are not proposing a scheme that would apply to cars. Car drivers rightly feel that the roads in our country have already been paid for through the taxation that they have paid over the years. We do, however, feel that the model of the M6 tool and the Mersey gateway project, which is in the process of being planned and constructed, offers the way to attract private capital into improvements in our infrastructure. I believe that motorists would accept that, because they would be paying for something over and above what already exists. What they do not want to do, as the No. 10 website petition showed, is pay again for something that they have already paid for.

Philip Hollobone: My hon. Friend mentioned foreign-registered vehicles other than lorries. Does he agree with me that there is a real problem in this country with the rules on MOTs and VED? Under EU rules, such vehicles are allowed on UK roads for up to six months, after which our domestic regulations must be complied with, but there is no effective way to enforce that.

Robert Goodwill: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I recently spent a day with the North Yorkshire police vehicle monitoring unit, which has the automatic numberplate detection system. We pulled up a Romanian car, but the officers told me that, by and large, they do not pull up foreign cars because even if the people inside can speak English, they pretend that they cannot. I do not believe that there is any mileage in trying to charge foreign cars to use our roads, not least because other countries might bring in reciprocal charges for British vehicles using their roads.
	Finally, I shall say a word or two about the greening of our roads and vehicles. Yesterday, with the Minister for Business, Innovation and Skills and the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), I attended the launch by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders of its report on CO2 emissions from vehicles. We were heartened to see that average emissions from vehicles sold last year had fallen to 149.5 grams per kilometre, a reduction of 5.4 grams. We are well on target for the 2012 target of 130 grams per kilometre. That is in marked contrast to the situation in the United States, whose equivalent of our industry agreement is the corporate average fuel economy agreement. The CAFE agreement calls for a 40 per cent. reduction by 2016, but if that target was met, it would mean only that vehicles were achieving 35 miles to the gallon. Since 1993, fuel taxation in the United States has been fixed for political reasons at 18.5 cents, not per litre but per US gallon.
	The UK has the most expensive petrol and diesel in Europe. Motorists understand the environmental impact of their mode of travel, and the need to pay taxes and charges that they judge to be fair. For many in rural areas there is no alternative to the car-or Land Rover, for that matter-so the potential for modal shift using the stick of taxation must be rural-proofed. I welcome moves by the Government to incentivise new green technologies such as electric vehicles by promoting places to plug in, and I hope they will address the flaws in the renewable transport fuel obligation certificates scheme.
	As the Minister knows, the 20p per litre for green fuels-biodiesel and ethanol-is being phased out at the end of the current financial year. It was supposed to be replaced by a trading scheme, but because of the mistakes made in specifying which fuel was relevant, there is concern that the embryonic biofuels industry will be strangled at birth and will not be able to continue. I hope the Minister will consider how that can be addressed.
	The real debate will start on Budget day and continue during the ensuing general election campaign. With flagship policies such as road charging and congestion schemes in tatters, people are asking where the vision and commitment are to provide green, convenient and cost-effective transport solutions for road users. The Government have run into the sand, run out of ideas and run out of money. We cannot go on like this. If the Government cannot change, voters will soon have the opportunity to vote for real change.

Paul Clark: I welcome the work of the Transport Committee and its inquiry into taxes and charges on road users. I thank the Committee for its work over the year in helping to identify critical issues in transport matters.
	We had interesting contributions from the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), from the Opposition Front-Bench spokespersons, the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill), and from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby), and the hon. Members for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) and for South-West Norfolk (Christopher Fraser), as well as a number of timely if not well-informed interventions, to which I might return before the end of my speech.
	It would be sensible for me to set out at the beginning the context in which the Government's decisions on transport taxation and spending are made. The core point is that Governments do not and cannot make transport tax or spending decisions in isolation. Many of the contributions to the debate today concentrated on one aspect, without considering the subject in the round. The report from the Transport Committee recognised that taxation and spending need to be considered in the round in order to get a fuller picture.
	Each choice has to be seen in the wider context of the Budget and the spending review. As I said in the debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday, it is essential to emphasise that taxes on motorists are primarily revenue-raising taxes that serve to support public finances and fund public services. It should be remembered that motorists are not just motorists; they are consumers of public services and, of course, taxpayers like many other people. I set that out at the beginning so that people are absolutely clear about the basis for taxation.
	Motoring tax revenues are combined with those from other taxes in the Consolidated Fund, where they support a range of Government spending priorities. It is therefore misleading to compare motoring tax revenues with road or transport spending. Hypothecating revenues to particular spending programmes imparts inflexibility and can lead to a misallocation of public resources, reducing the value of taxpayers' money. Some contributors said, "This was the revenue from vehicle excise duty and fuel duty, but it is not the money being spent on roads." As several speakers recognised, however, that money funds not only roads, but many other aspects of transport, and many other public services to which I have referred.
	It is true, as the hon. Member for Lewes recognised, that when possible and appropriate we should structure revenue-raising taxes to support other Government objectives, a classic example of which is environmental policy. So, vehicle excise duty is structured to incentivise the uptake of lower CO2-emitting cars, while fuel duty gives added incentives for greater fuel efficiency. Decisions on tax are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who considers each tax as part of his wider fiscal judgment within the normal Budget-making process. In taking those decisions, he considers all the relevant social, economic and environmental matters that must be taken into account.
	On transport spending, we start not with a clear sheet, but with a structure and transport network that has been built up by incremental changes-some big, some small-over many decades. The choices and the drivers behind them have sometimes been local and sometimes been national, but more often than not they have been a combination of both. Sometimes the choices were uncontroversial, and other times they were far from it. From the creation of the Bridgewater canal in the 1760s, which led to the canal boom, to the building of Heathrow terminal 5, however, every change to our transport network has mattered.
	Even seemingly small changes and decisions can have great implications. Changes to the railway timetable after some 40 years can shake up the working patterns of thousands of commuters, and the closure of a bus stop can trap an elderly person in their home and lead to social exclusion; but the opening of a new bus route can create new job opportunities, and opportunities for those in rural areas-a matter that was touched on earlier and to which I shall return specifically. All those issues place great responsibility on the Department for Transport, and there are certain things that we simply have to do. We have to maintain the roads-with record levels of investment, despite the comments from the hon. Member for Kettering-and we need to support local authorities, keep the railways running and stick to our contractual obligations.
	I shall now address some of the issues that hon. Members raised. We have responded fully to the Transport Committee's recommendations, and that work helps to guide the Department's work. Let me assure hon. Members that we have a close relationship with the Treasury-as with all spending Departments, not surprisingly-and take part in proper discussions about spending commitments, value for money and taxation. As regards the issues of mistrust that were referred to by the Select Committee, let me put it on record in this House that we certainly recognise the importance of transparency on revenues and spending. That is why statistics are published as part of the Budget and pre-Budget report process.
	The issue of rural communities is fundamentally important, and this Government have very much sought to reduce the exclusion and isolation that we recognise that rural communities can suffer from in comparison with urban communities. That is why we introduced the Local Transport Act 2008, which gave powers to local authorities to enable them to negotiate, discuss and take forward proposals with bus companies, for example, to provide for better schemes to cover rural areas. Indeed, we went further in helping to deliver a better system by improving the facilities and provisions for community transport schemes.
	I have heard what has been said about car use, with people arguing for a differentiated fuel duty in rural areas. Let me make the position very clear. Fuel duty is levied on the producer at the point it leaves the refinery-it is currently set at a rate of 56.19p per litre-and it is set according to where one is in the United Kingdom. I recognise the business about fuel being more expensive at the pump in some rural areas than in urban areas. That is not to do with fuel duty, but with market forces such as the additional transport costs that are involved to get the fuel to that particular petrol station and less competition among suppliers in a given market.
	Even if we did have a rural fuel duty, we could not guarantee that it would be passed on to the consumer, as it could be absorbed in the bottom line of the commercial operator selling the fuel. Equally, it could have a perverse effect in that we ended up with people driving from what would be perceived as high-duty areas to low-duty areas and adding to congestion on the roads, and carbon emissions, in those areas. The level of tax is not the reason why fuel is more expensive in rural areas.

Philip Hollobone: Her Majesty's Government could, of course, consider differential charging on vehicle excise duty whereby motorists living in rural areas paid a very low rate while those living in cities paid a far larger amount.

Paul Clark: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman raises the issue of vehicle excise duty. We have introduced the 13-band system for vehicle excise duty, which is linked to carbon emissions. Of course, people in rural areas do not have to have vehicles that are in the highest band. As I believe the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby pointed out in the recent debate in Westminster Hall, not all large vehicles fall into the highest VED bands. The carbon emissions produced and the technology in the vehicle are the most important factors. Under the new VED rates, 68 per cent. of all vehicle owners will either pay no more or pay less than they did in 2009. The change is very much about the green agenda, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman recognises the work that this Government have done in that field. VED bands are not retrospective, and there is nothing new about introducing VED rates that apply to existing vehicles. That has been the case since day one of the tax.

Robert Goodwill: Has the Minister given any consideration to having a sliding scale of VED rather than bands? That would incentivise people to select greener vehicles within a particular category. I have certainly received representations along those lines.

Paul Clark: There are always a number of schemes to be considered at any given time. We have introduced ours because we believe it will have the desired effect as part of our carbon reduction and climate change policies, and we will need to see how it works. I should say that VED raises some £5.6 billion annually.

Christopher Fraser: The Minister's point about tax bands is valid in relation to emissions, but even accepting that, somebody who lives in a rural area and has to use a four-wheel-drive vehicle is doubly penalised unless we have a scheme based on geographic area in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) set out.

Paul Clark: There is not a three-line whip that requires people in any given setting to have the most polluting and largest vehicles. Equally, because of the technology under the bonnet, not all large vehicles fall within the higher bands. We have been incentivising vehicle manufacturers to work together in partnership to reduce emissions levels from any particular model.
	To pick up on a point that the hon. Member for Lewes made, he suggested that abolishing VED and reducing fuel duty would make everything much better. He said that people would shift to the railways and so on. I recognise what he says, but I do not believe that it would work, and I am sure that he does not either. The first thing he said was that motorists deserve a fair deal, and I doubt whether they would recognise cutting 90 per cent. of the road budget as a fair deal.
	The railways are undoubtedly a beacon, because of the investment and changes in the system. There are 49 per cent. more people travelling on our railways-the highest level since the second world war-and all the changes have made a real difference to people. The hon. Gentleman will know about the levels of patronage and use. There is still further work to be done, and it will be interesting to see what further developments the Government will suggest as we go forward.
	Equally, however, I wish to point out that I attended an urban logistics conference this morning, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South for recognising my commitment to freight. It is absolutely essential that we have a strong freight logistics business in this country. That includes road, rail, inland waterways when that is sensible, and coastal shipping. I strongly believe that, which is why the Government will continue to invest money via the various modal shift grants that we provide. I must recognise, however, that there are limitations. Sixty-eight per cent. of freight moves within the same region. With the best will in the world, and given that we are geographically a relatively small country, it would not be common sense to shift that freight on to the railways or some other means of transport. We must take a balanced approach.

Norman Baker: I thank the Minister for answering my points, but I am looking at policy in the round. Of course most freight will need to go by road, and in fact, space for freight movement will be created by the introduction of a road-pricing system.
	However, on the switch from the major roads budget to the rail schemes that we are proposing, the Minister will recognise the tremendous growth in the railways and the growth to come. Notwithstanding the announcement on high-speed rail that I am anticipating tomorrow, the Government have not produced any new rail schemes for the localised reopening of stations and lines, for which many people in the country are clamouring. That has happened in Scotland with Stirling-Alloa and in Wales with Ebbw Vale, but it has not happened in England. The Minister will know that many schemes, such as Skipton and Colne, have a good economic case. Money must be found for them if we are going to find a space for the railways to grow and meet the needs of passengers in future.

Paul Clark: The record investments that have been going into the railway system at a national level have been made to ensure that, for example, we have a decent west coast main line that is reliable and punctual. We must have investment in that. Further investments have been made, including, for example, in Reading station. We have always said that the case for the reopening of stations can be made through the regional funding allocation process and other via routes. If there is a case for the schemes and if resource is available, they could move forward, but each case must be considered on its merits.

Rosie Cooper: I wonder why we are discussing that kind of thing if we cannot bring to the Minister's attention two cases in my constituency. First, Skelmersdale has no railway station at all-there is low car ownership among its 38,000 or 40,000 people, but they have no access to the rail service. Secondly, the Burscough curves proposals would make such a major difference at the north end of my constituency.

Paul Clark: I recognise my hon. Friend's arguments. It is about striking a balance in our transport infrastructure, which might involve investment in the railways or in the bus network, in which we have put some £2.4 billion. That investment, free local travel for older people across the country, ensuring that the roads are safe and secure enough for people to walk or cycle, and ensuring safety for motorcyclists make a difference.
	Let me move to one or two other matters that were raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South said that further road building is not the answer. I recognise his arguments, and he referred to a very good publication by Dr. David Metz. It is about getting the balance right. We must recognise that bottlenecks appear because of, for example, engineering set-ups and lights. Let us take as an example the Hindhead tunnel under the A3, a project in which we have invested some £376 million. The tunnel goes under a major environmental area, and will make a great difference to air quality, people's quality of life, and motorists, for whom it will save time and money. It is right that we look at how we can best use the assets that we have, and that is why we announced a £6 billion programme, to be rolled out in coming years, to accommodate traffic better and improve flow on motorways, including hard shoulder running and active traffic management.
	We need to get the balance right, and that is why we have invested in the west coast main line. People wanting to travel further now have a decent rail service to choose, because of that investment and the improved reliability. High Speed 1 will be critical, and I suspect that further high-speed opportunities will take us a long way.
	The Chair of the Select Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South both mentioned continued investment. We are clear that if we cut back on investment in our infrastructure, it will not be good for UK plc, including business and enterprise, as well as individuals trying to go to work, visit relatives or go on holiday.
	The hon. Member for Kettering raised the issue of a European tax on fuel, but no such thing is in the pipeline. The Government are clear that tax is a matter for member states, and there is no case for harmonisation. Nor has any proposal been tabled for such a tax, and I put that clearly on the record. The hon. Gentleman said that for every £1 collected only 20 to 25p goes on building the road network. That is the whole point. He does not take into account the externalities involved, including the policing of the highways, clearing up after accidents or the cost of lighting, let alone addressing the effect of road use on the environment.
	I hear what hon. Members have said about potholes. It is interesting that when it suits them, people want diktats from Whitehall, but the rest of the time they want local decision making. It is obvious that local authorities are best able to assess the damage to their roads that was caused by the winter weather. The costs for February last year are only just being put together. It was claimed that the cost would be £50 million, but we expect the final figure to be some £12 million. The Local Government Association has suggested that this year's bill will be £100 million, but its letter also recognises that it is far too early to say what the cost will be and that current estimates are very broad figures. We are considering that issue, as well as some specific claims that we have received.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to house building and the fact that we had far too many people in this country. The actual growth in vehicle numbers over the past 50 years has been steady and has not peaked or fallen in connection with various events. The whole idea of regional funding allocations is to bring together programmes such as those for house building with transport requirements, and the Government are investing in schemes such as Fast Track to help to ensure that transport systems are in place for people.
	We have had a wide-ranging debate, and time is too short to allow me to respond to all the points that have been raised, but we will continue to take on board the work of the Transport Committee. I am grateful for the ability to debate some of the issues relating to taxation and spending. One of the things that this Government are certain off is that investment in infrastructure and our transport system is important for business, individuals and UK plc.
	 Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54 (4)).
	 The Deputy Speaker put the deferred Questions (Standing Order No. 54 (5)).

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 2009-10

Department of Health

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2010, for expenditure by the Department of Health-
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £969,893,000, be authorised for use as set out in HC 257,
	(2) a further sum, not exceeding £606,272,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs as so set out, and
	(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.

Department for Transport

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2010, for expenditure by the Department for Transport-
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £606,268,000, be authorised for use as set out in HC 257,
	(2) a further sum, not exceeding £257,734,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs as so set out, and
	(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.

HM Revenue and Customs

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2010, for expenditure by HM Revenue and Customs-
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £242,822,000, be authorised for use as set out in HC 257,
	(2) a further sum, not exceeding £212,951,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs as so set out, and
	(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.- (Mark Tami.)
	 The Deputy Speaker then put the Questions on the outstanding Estimates (Standing Order No. 55).

ESTIMATES, 2010-11 (NAVY) VOTE A

Resolved,
	That, during the year ending with 31 March 2011, a number not exceeding 42,550 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service and that numbers in the Reserve Naval and Marine Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in HC 304 of this Session.- (Mark Tami.)

ESTIMATES, 2010-11, (ARMY) VOTE A

Resolved,
	That, during the year ending with 31 March 2011, a number not exceeding 124,030 all ranks be maintained for Army Service and that numbers in the Reserve Land Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in HC 304 of this Session.- (Mark Tami.)

ESTIMATES, 2010-11 (AIR) VOTE A

Resolved,
	That, during the year ending with 31 March 2011, a number not exceeding 47,400 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service and that numbers in the Reserve Air Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in HC 304 of this Session.- (Mark Tami.)

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 2008-09

Resolved,
	That, for the year that ended with 31 March 2009-
	(1) resources, not exceeding £23,893,853,000, be authorised for use to make good excesses of certain resources for defence and civil services as set out in HC 263, and
	(2) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.- (Mark Tami.)

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2009-10

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2010-
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £9,706,070,000, be authorised for defence and civil services as set out in HC 257 and HC 324,
	(2) a further sum, not exceeding £7,035,947,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs of defence and civil services as so set out, and
	(3) limits as set out in HC 257 be set on appropriations in aid.- (Mark Tami.)
	 Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions relating to Supplementary Estimates, 2009-10, and Estimates, Excesses, 2008-09 and the Resolution of 10 December relating to Supplementary Estimates and New Estimates, 2009-10;
	That the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Liam Byrne, Sarah McCarthy-Fry, Ian Pearson and Stephen Timms introduce the Bill.

Consolidated Fund Bill

Presentation and First Reading
	Mr. Stephen Timms accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the service of the years ending with 31 March 2009 and 31 March 2010 and to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending with 31 March 2010; and to appropriate the supply authorised in this Session of Parliament for the service of the years ending with 31 March 2009 and 31 March 2010.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow; and to printed (Bill  74 ).

Business without Debate

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15) ,
	That, at this day's sitting, the Second Reading of the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Bill [ Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. -( Mark Tami .)
	 Question agreed to.

THIRD PARTIES (RIGHTS AGAINST INSURERS) BILL [ LORDS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Orders Nos.  59(3) and 90(5), That the Bill be now read a Second time. - ( Mark Tami.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No.  63).

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 10 to 15 together.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118 (6)),

National Health Service

That the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Consequential Amendments No. 2) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.
	That the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 2 February, be approved.

Social Security

That the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.
	That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.

Employment and Training

That the draft Employee Study and Training (Qualifying Period of Employment) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 1 February, be approved.

Extradition

That the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 21 January, be approved. -(Mark Tami.)
	 Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119 (11)),
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 5271/10 and Addendum 1, 2008 Commission Annual Report on the Implementation of the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance, No. 14685/09, Commission Communication on Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) Multi-Annual Indicative Financial Framework for 2011-2013, No. 15365/09 and Addendum 1, Commission Annual Report of the Instrument for Structural Policy for Pre-accession (ISPA) 2008, No. 5226/10 and Addendum 1, Commission 2008 Annual Report on PHARE, Turkey Preaccession Instruments, CARDS and Transition Facility and No. 5516/10, Court of Auditors Special Report 16-2009, the European Commission's Management of Preaccession Assistance to Turkey; and urges the Commission to learn lessons from previous enlargements, in particular the need to ensure IPA is well-managed and effective. -(Mark Tami.)
	 Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Energy Costs (Highlands and Islands)

Danny Alexander: I have the honour of presenting a petition of concerned energy users in the highlands and islands that has been signed by several hundred of my constituents, whose signatures were collected alongside a similar petition, which will be presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy). The petition concerns the problems faced by people who use heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas as their principal source of heat, because there is no access to the main gas grid, and the associated problems of fuel poverty and the lack of support for energy efficiency that affect these people.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of concerned energy users in the Highlands and Islands,
	Declares that the below Petitioners are concerned about the energy costs faced by households without access to the gas main, and the large rise in numbers facing acute fuel poverty this winter.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to target emergency financial help at those who rely on heating oil, LPG or solid fuel to match the support currently provided through the six biggest gas and electricity providers.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000753]

Energy Costs (Highlands and Islands)

Charles Kennedy: I wish to present a petition framed in similar terms to that presented by my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), which, too, has been signed by a significant number of my constituents. In so doing, I would like to underscore the point that he made about the deep unfairnesses and practical injustices-not least this winter, of all winters-that have been experienced by both sets of constituents and by many thousands of others besides, in the highlands of Scotland generally and in Scotland as a whole.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [The Petition of concerned energy users in the Highlands and Islands,
	 Declares that the below Petitioners are concerned about the energy costs faced by households without access to the gas main, and the large rise in numbers facing acute fuel poverty this winter.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to target emergency financial help at those who rely on heating oil, LPG or solid fuel to match the support currently provided through the six biggest gas and electricity providers.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P000752]

LAW ON ASSISTED SUICIDE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(David Wright.)

Patricia Hewitt: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to raise this important and sensitive issue in the House this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	When I served as Health Secretary a few years ago, I became increasingly concerned about the plight of individuals who were seeking an assisted death and who desperately wanted the support of their families, friends and medical practitioners, but who could not-and cannot-get that help legally, here in their own country. I was also clear, however, that the issue was not one on which Ministers in general, or the Health Secretary in particular, should seek to initiate a change in the law. As the House will remember, I already had quite enough controversies to deal with when I was at the Department of Health. I decided instead to pursue the issue once I had returned to the Back Benches, which I am now doing as a patron of Dignity in Dying, an admirable organisation dedicated to ensuring that patients can make well-informed choices about the care and treatment that they receive at the end of their lives. If I am ever faced with the diagnosis of a terminal illness, I do not know what choice I would make for myself, but I do know that I want that choice.
	I want to begin by warmly welcoming the publication of the Government's "End of life" strategy. In my constituency I have seen the wonderful work done over many years by staff and volunteers at our local hospice run by LOROS-the Leicestershire and Rutland Organisation for the Relief of Suffering-and, similarly, the work of the Leicestershire-based children's hospice, Rainbow. We all want palliative care of that quality to be available in every part of the country, not just within the NHS but funded by the NHS. The Government's strategy, if and when it is fully implemented, will do much to achieve that goal.
	But palliative care, however good, is not the answer for everyone. Professor Baroness Finlay, to whose work in palliative care I readily pay tribute, is a staunch opponent of any change in the law on assisted dying, yet even she has testified that palliative care is not a blanket panacea. For patients who are terminally ill, whose distress cannot be alleviated by palliative care, and who want to end their lives, what is the choice? Given the present state of our law, there is no good answer.
	For some people-more than 100 Britons since 2002-the answer lies in a visit to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland. Some 700 of our fellow citizens are members of that organisation. For others, help might come from their doctor-sometimes, but not always, acting within the present law. Professor Clive Seale, who has researched this issue in great detail, found that around one in 500 deaths in the United Kingdom-more than 1,000 a year-were the result of voluntary euthanasia, involving a criminal act. Even more-over 1,500 deaths a year-involved non-voluntary euthanasia. Other desperate people find that they have to refuse food and water-a wretched process-in order to exercise some control over when and how they die. And each year, a number of terminally ill people-it is impossible to say how many-resort in desperation to violent, lonely and often botched suicides.
	The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris)-on this issue, I shall call him my hon. Friend-made the point in his excellent speech in the Westminster Hall debate last November that on the one hand, our society and the law recognise and fully respect the right of a mentally competent person to refuse life-saving treatment, and thus to die. He pointed out that that applies even in the case of a 13-year-old girl. On the other hand, however, we refuse to recognise the right of a mentally competent adult who is terminally ill to seek help to die when they want to. That debate in Westminster Hall was the first on this subject in the House in the past 10 years-and an excellent debate it as, too.
	The House has a long and honourable tradition of debating and then changing the law on controversial issues that, very properly, belong to free votes rather than to party manifestos. The other place, to its credit, has held a number of serious and thoughtful debates in recent years, as well as conducting its own review of this issue. When the great majority of people say that they want a law to permit assisted dying, and when there is such an urgent need to re-establish the reputation of this House, we should have the courage to tackle controversial issues rather than run away from them. In the absence of parliamentary action, however, it has been left to individuals and the courts to force the pace of change.
	Last year I was approached by a constituent-a woman with a severe progressive condition, from which she will never recover, who had already suffered years of distress. She wants to go to Switzerland to die, but she does not want to go alone. She asked whether I could help her by giving her, and above all her family, the reassurance that they would not be prosecuted if they accompanied her to Dignitas. At that point, I could not. I told her that no one had been prosecuted for many years, but that several people had been interviewed by the police, and not known for months whether they would be prosecuted or not.
	That situation at least has now changed, because of one courageous and determined woman, Debbie Purdy, who wanted to know whether her husband would be prosecuted if he went with her to Dignitas. After years of legal battles, Miss Purdy finally won her case. In his judgment, Lord Brown said:
	"What to my mind is needed is a custom-built policy statement indicating the various factors for and against prosecution...factors designed to distinguish between those situations in which, however tempted to assist, the prospective aider and abettor should refrain from doing so, and those situations in which he or she may fairly hope to be, if not commended, at the very least forgiven, rather than condemned, for giving assistance."
	As a result of that decision, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, issued new prosecuting guidelines last month. This final policy, unlike the interim guidelines, was broadly welcomed by supporters and opponents of a change in the law, which I believe is testament to a difficult job very well done.
	At their heart, the new prosecuting guidelines distinguish between compassionate assistance given to someone who has reached
	"a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide",
	and malicious, irresponsible or organised help. But the new guidelines, although very welcome, are not the end of the matter. Indeed, the DPP, in his entirely proper determination to avoid usurping the role of Parliament by creating a new regulatory regime for assisted suicide, might well have created a fresh set of problems. For instance, the new guidelines make no reference at all to the victim having
	"a terminal illness or a severe degenerative physical condition from which there was no possibility of recovery".
	Those words appeared in the consultation draft, but they have been dropped from the final guidelines. I am not sure how widely it is appreciated that the guidelines go much further than the cases of terminal illness that Miss Purdy and Dignity in Dying, in particular, were seeking to deal with.
	Furthermore, the new guidelines, unlike the consultation draft, make no reference to residency requirements, so we may find that some people living in jurisdictions that are significantly more hostile to assisted dying will in future travel to the UK to commit suicide with the help of friends or relatives, just as some Britons now travel to Switzerland to seek a legal, medically assisted death.
	Most worryingly of all, the new guidelines create a greater risk of prosecution for members of the medical and other caring professions. Unlike the initial draft, they specifically state that prosecution is more likely if
	"the suspect was acting in his or her capacity as a medical doctor, nurse, other healthcare professional or carer".
	In the words of Professor Penney Lewis of the centre of medical law and ethics at King's College, London, the guidelines
	"are designed to ensure that assistance in suicide remains an amateur activity carried out by inexperienced individuals without the assistance of professionals",
	thus increasing the risk, of course, of more desperate but botched suicide attempts.
	The Medical Protection Society, which provides professional and legal support to around half of all UK doctors, tells me that in the last few years it has received a growing number of queries from doctors concerned about how to care for a dying patient. It has no policy position on the issue of assisted suicide, but it does want legal certainty for its members, and it fears that, under the new guidelines, a doctor might be risking prosecution-for instance, by providing the medical records and certificate of fitness to travel required for a visit to Dignitas.
	No prosecuting guidelines, however sensitively and carefully drafted, can be a substitute for clarity in the law. Above all, they can deal with the situation only after someone has received help to die. They cannot provide any safeguards in advance-the safeguards that I, Dignity in Dying and most of the public believe are needed to protect vulnerable people from exploitation or unscrupulous pressure.
	This issue is not going to go away. I am one of the baby boomer generation that has been responsible for initiating and creating so much social change. As this generation faces the end of our parents' lives and then begins to confront the end of our own lives, I believe that we will insist on change in this area, too.

Ann Cryer: On a point of clarification, does my right hon. Friend agree that the excellent palliative care provided by the hospice movement and a possible acceptance of assisted suicide are not mutually exclusive, but could provide a legitimate end-of-life choice? My late second husband, John, died in the Marie Curie hospice in Bradford. It was his choice, and I appreciate the great care that it gave him.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, drawing on her own personal experience. She is absolutely right. Experience in the state of Oregon and in the Netherlands, for example, shows that wonderful palliative care, far from being reduced or diminished by a change in the law to allow assisted dying, is actually increased by it.
	For all the reasons that I have set out, I have come to the conclusion that we need a royal commission-an independent inquiry of that stature-to look at the evidence from places that have already legalised assisted dying, to consider the numbers of British people seeking an assisted death either here or abroad, to examine the position of medical and nursing staff under present law, and to make proposals on how vulnerable people might best be protected from abuse or exploitation if the law were to be changed. Such a report could then form the basis for the wider debate that we need, not just among the public but above all in Parliament, about the best way forward.
	Late though it is in the present Parliament, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to do her best to persuade the Lord Chancellor of the merits of this proposal. I for one have no doubt that it is no longer a question of whether the law will change but a question of when it will change, and I hope that this evening's debate will be another small step towards that end.

Claire Ward: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) on securing the debate. The law in this area arouses strong and deeply divided views-across the political divide-the public, the media and many Members of the House. In Parliament the debate has taken place mostly in the other place, and it is therefore good for the House of Commons to have an opportunity to contribute to it. However, we are clearly still a long way from reaching a consensus.
	Under section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961, as amended by section 59 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, it is an offence to do an act capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person with the intention to so encourage or assist. The Government believe that any change in the law is an issue of individual conscience, and is rightly a matter for Parliament rather than Government policy to decide. The Government therefore take a neutral view when others seek to change the law, which means that we, as the Government, should neither stand in the way of such a change nor actively pursue it.
	The same applies to the law applying to the closely related issue of mercy killing, which has been highlighted by recent cases of which all Members will have learnt from the media. As we have observed this evening and in broader discussions, assisted suicide and mercy killing often form part of the same debate, but, while both raise difficult moral issues, there is an important distinction between them. Intentionally taking another person's life is murder, unless a partial defence applies to reduce the offence to manslaughter. Helping another person to take his or her own life is covered by the offence of encouraging or assisting suicide.
	As my right hon. Friend said, the Law Commission made a recommendation in relation to mercy killing in its 2006 report "Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide", which constituted the first of two stages of a review of homicide law. The issue of mercy killing fell within the scope of the Law Commission's review, but only to the extent that it related to the grounds for reducing a more serious offence to a less serious offence of homicide, and it was considered in that context. The underlying ethical question of whether it should be legalised was outside the commission's terms of reference. The commission recommended that the Government undertake a public consultation on whether, and if so to what extent, the law should recognise either an offence of mercy killing or a partial defence of mercy killing. We said at the time that any change to the law in relation to mercy killing was an issue of conscience and one for Parliament to decide, and, as I have said, that remains our view.
	Let me now address the law on assisting suicide. Whether there are any circumstances in which it should be legal to assist another person to die is also a highly controversial issue. It raises huge ethical questions, to which there are no easy answers. My postbag at the Ministry of Justice reflects the real concerns of members of the public about the issue, and the extent to which it polarises opinion. I receive many passionate letters on both sides of the debate, not only about the issues raised by my right hon. Friend but about the personal circumstances raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). Even if one accepts that the law should change, there is no consensus on where a line should be drawn or on what safeguards should be in place, and for whom.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West contends that terminally ill, mentally competent adults who are suffering at the end of their lives should have the choice of an assisted death, within safeguards. I am of course aware of opinion polls suggesting that there is strong public support for such a change in the law and I do not doubt the compassion that drives those who believe so strongly in that view. No one could fail to sympathise with those who are faced with the sort of difficult decisions that none of us would ever want to make, but even the most limited step in this area would fundamentally change the principle we have held to so far on the ethics of assisted suicide.
	I am not saying it is a step we in Parliament and as a country should not take, nor do I want in any way to minimise the suffering individuals face and the wish of some of them to end their lives, but we should not underestimate the magnitude of any change that says that we can help people to kill themselves rather than merely helping them to withstand their suffering.
	Proposals to change the law have been debated in another place on a number of occasions, but none of the private Members' Bills introduced there has progressed further than Second Reading despite the fact that the Bills would only have affected the terminally ill and were progressively narrower in scope. The issue was also looked at in great detail by a Select Committee from March 2004 to March 2005, but the Committee did not take a position either way on the central issue.
	My right hon. Friend also contends that a change in the law is necessary to bring it into line with the practice of the Director of Public Prosecutions. As she said this evening, it is often reported that the Crown Prosecution Service has failed to prosecute more than 100 cases where people have been given assistance to travel to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland. However, in its judgment in the Purdy case, the Court of Appeal referred to evidence given by the CPS that, as far as it could ascertain, only eight such cases were ever referred to it and all but one failed to meet the level of evidence required for a prosecution.
	Since that evidence was produced, I am told that one further case has been considered and not prosecuted on public interest grounds. So, there are not in fact a large number of cases in which the CPS has decided that there was sufficient evidence of an offence but decided not to prosecute. As hon. Members will know, following a 12-week public consultation on the interim policy issued last September, the CPS published at the end of last month a policy for prosecutors in respect of cases of assisted suicide. It sets out the factors that prosecutors will consider when deciding whether or not it is in the public interest to prosecute someone for encouraging or assisting suicide.
	It is not the case that in publishing such a policy the DPP has in effect changed the law. As the policy makes clear, it is not for the director to change the law and nor can he give any prospective immunity from prosecution. The director himself has made this point strongly and with the utmost clarity. Neither is it the case that, in exercising his discretion in deciding whether to prosecute someone for assisting suicide, the director is doing anything now that he was not doing before the policy for prosecutors was published. Under section 2(4) of the Suicide Act 1961, there has always been a requirement for the director's consent to a prosecution for a section 2 offence. In exercising that discretion, he has always had to weigh up the public interest factors for and against prosecution on the facts of individual cases.
	Many of those who oppose any change in the law are concerned that it would weaken the protection that the law affords the most vulnerable people in society. They believe that no safeguards, however stringent, could ever eliminate the possibility that a vulnerable person might feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to end their life.

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her thoughtful response to the debate, but I hope that she will accept that the current law provides no safeguards whatever in relation to the rather large number of deaths that Professor Seale found involved a criminal act, however compassionate the motive, on the part of the doctor or other medical practitioner. More broadly, does she accept that the case for Government neutrality that she is making might well apply to initiating a change in the law, but does not apply to establishing a royal commission, which I have suggested?

Claire Ward: I shall discuss the royal commission in a moment. Other possible assisted suicide incidences were covered in exactly the same way by the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to the decision on whether to prosecute. The Government remain neutral on that and it will remain a matter for Parliament.
	Let me return to the factors that the Crown Prosecution Service take into account when deciding whether to prosecute. One factor in the interim policy was whether the victim had a terminal illness, a severe, incurable physical disability or a severe degenerative physical condition from which there was no possibility of recovery. During the consultation on the CPS policy, that issue was one of those most commented on. Many respondents to the public consultation felt that including that factor gave the impression that the lives of people who are affected in those ways were less valued in the interim policy. Although the CPS did not accept some of the arguments that were made, it recognised that any factor that might suggest that the act of encouraging or assisting the suicide of someone who was suffering in such a way was somehow less serious, simply by virtue of the victim's physical condition, was inappropriate for inclusion in the final policy and so that factor was removed. The final policy is more focused on the motives of the suspect rather than on the characteristics of the person who committed or attempted to commit suicide. There is a distinction to be made between the law and prosecution policy, but the level of public concern about the inclusion of that factor in the interim policy is indicative of the concern that might be felt about any proposal to change the law.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West, and others in another place, have suggested that there should be a royal commission or other independent investigation to assist Parliament in considering this issue. As she has said, this matter was debated in the other place as recently as 3 February, when my ministerial colleague, Lord Bach, responded for the Government. Hon. Members might want to read the  Official Report of that full debate on these difficult issues. Time does not permit me to go into exactly what was said, but holding an independent inquiry on the issue is not as straightforward as it might seem. Neither can there be any certainty that such an inquiry would reach consensus. We cannot reach consensus in this House or in another place because there are such differing views across parties and public opinion, so I wonder why anyone would believe that a royal commission or any other independent inquiry could come to a settled view on this incredibly difficult matter. I understand my right hon. Friend's frustrations but I cannot give any commitment to establish a commission or other independent inquiry.
	The legal, administrative, practical and resource implications of making any change to the law in this highly controversial area are considerable. We cannot do justice to this issue in this short time, and it cannot be resolved in the short time remaining in this Parliament, but I have no doubt that the debate will continue in one form or another in the next Parliament. In the mean time, I thank hon. and right hon. Members for their valuable contributions to this incredibly important debate.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.